usb_drive_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: the three possible attachment states ('host', 'kvm', 'none') and that capacity is only populated when attached to the KVM. It is silent on whether this is purely read-only, any prerequisites, or refresh/latency characteristics, which leaves gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then enumerates the reported fields. The parenthetical definitions are the only expansion and they earn their space, though the sentence runs slightly long for such a simple query.

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?

A zero-parameter read tool with an output schema present needs little else. The description goes further by interpreting the returned attachment enum values and the capacity condition, so an agent can act on the result without external knowledge.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty argument object.

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 (the KVM's Virtual USB Drive) and the exact facts it reports: enabled state, attachment location, and capacity. It implies a distinction from usb_drive_list (which lists files) by describing the attachment locus, but never names the sibling, so it stops short of an explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of what precedes it (e.g., call before usb_drive_attach or usb_drive_upload), and no exclusions. With siblings like usb_drive_list, usb_drive_attach, and status, an explicit routing hint would be valuable; usage is only inferred from the name.

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