run_smart_test

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

With only a title in annotations and no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the test runs in the background, adds drive load, and requires confirmation, which are important behavioral traits. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the core action, then provides parameter details, behavioral notes, and the confirmation requirement in a few short sentences. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool that initiates a background self-test, the description is quite complete: it covers the action, parameter specifics, side effects, and the follow-up tool (smart_selftest_log). It does not explicitly state the immediate return value, but given the background nature and no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents valid values for `kind` ('short', 'long', 'conveyance') and clarifies the confirm requirement. The `device` parameter is left to the schema (as a required string), which is reasonably inferable from the tool's purpose. This partial compensation justifies a 4.

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 tool's action: 'Start a SMART self-test on a device.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like smart_status, smart_health, and smart_selftest_log by explicitly mentioning that results should be polled with smart_selftest_log. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear usage context: it explains that the test runs in the background and adds drive load, and explicitly names smart_selftest_log as the tool for polling results later. It also notes that confirm=True is required. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool in favor of status tools like smart_status or smart_health, so it stops short of a 5.

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