usb_drive_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the attachment requirement is useful context, but the description does not disclose the effect of switch_to_kvm, whether the operation is safe, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical prerequisite.

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. However, the description leaves key parameter semantics and the side-effect behavior of switch_to_kvm unaddressed. Given no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is incomplete for correct invocation.

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% and the description does not mention either parameter. 'List a directory' weakly implies a path argument, but switch_to_kvm is entirely unexplained. For two undocumented parameters, this fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List a directory on the Virtual USB Drive.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like upload, download, delete, and status. It does not explicitly name or contrast with an alternative tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It provides one explicit prerequisite: the drive must be attached to the KVM. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus siblings such as usb_drive_status, nor does it describe exclusions or alternative listing methods.

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