storage_list_mounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose output format, permissions required, or any side effects. For a tool with zero parameters, the description should at least hint at what data is returned (e.g., device names, mount points), but it does not.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. This is ideal conciseness.

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 parameterless tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, since there is no output schema, the agent has no idea what the returned data will contain (e.g., mount points, device names, filesystem types). The description does not specify the output structure or any filtering options, leaving a moderate gap in completeness for a storage-listing tool.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (an empty schema), there is nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate because the schema is fully transparent and there are no parameters to compensate for.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'mounted filesystems and storage devices', which conveys the core purpose. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like storage_disk_usage (which likely reports usage) and file_list (which lists files), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It is specific enough for an agent to grasp the basic function.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as storage_disk_usage or file_list. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema, which is insufficient.

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