Get storage overview

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result (per-drive fields and subsystem attribution), which matters since there is no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its reported fields, followed by a single usage note. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields and gives a purpose (Entware drive health). It lacks only edge-case behavior (e.g. what is returned when no USB drive is present), a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is empty and parameter semantics are moot; baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately spends no space on nonexistent inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (internal flash and USB drives) and enumerates exactly what is reported: partition UUID, label, filesystem, state, free space, and consuming subsystem. This clearly differentiates it from sibling read tools like get_opkg_status or get_system_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use it to check whether the Entware drive is healthy" gives a concrete when-to-use scenario. However, it does not name an alternative or state when this tool is the wrong choice (e.g. versus get_opkg_status for package state), so no exclusion guidance is present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.