mount_media_storage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the key trait that the attached device is 'read-only'. However it says nothing about state effects such as what happens if a drive is already mounted, whether attach is reversible, or what detach_usb_drive actually destroys, leaving mutation behavior largely opaque by offloading it to a sibling.

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 tight sentences with the action and resource front-loaded and no filler. Compression comes at the cost of offloading real content to sibling tools, but structurally there is no waste.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the read-only nature plus sibling cross-references are covered. The gap is the undocumented 3-parameter surface and unstated mount-state side effects, which are material for a tool that changes VM device state.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not: mode and detach_usb_drive are both punted to mount_media_url rather than explained. The phrase 'CD-ROM or disk' loosely mirrors the cdrom/disk enum, and 'see list_media' hints at filename sourcing, but no parameter is actually documented here.

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 verb and resource: 'Attach an image stored on the KVM ... as a read-only virtual USB CD-ROM or disk.' The contrast with mount_media_url is only implied by the way it delegates 'mode semantics', so an agent must infer the source difference rather than being told it outright.

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?

Points the agent to list_media to find the filename and to mount_media_url for mode and detach semantics, which gives practical routing context. It never explicitly says when to choose this tool over mount_media_url (stored image vs URL), so the guidance is contextual rather than spelled out.

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