smart_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The term 'self-assessment' implies a non-destructive read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or what permissions are required. It does disclose the output type (PASSED/FAILED), which is a useful behavioral detail.

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 short sentences that front-load the purpose and then explain the parameter. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 simple tool with one parameter and a straightforward output, the description is reasonably complete. It states what it does, the parameter format, and the result (PASSED/FAILED), but does not specify whether the output is a simple string or includes additional fields, nor the exact criteria for PASSED/FAILED. Given the sibling context and simplicity, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 no schema descriptions, the description compensates by explaining the 'device' parameter format: '`device` is 'sda' or '/dev/sda'', clarifying that both forms are accepted. This adds meaning beyond the bare string schema. It could go further with examples for other device types (e.g., nvme0n1), but it covers the common case.

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 a specific action ('overall-health self-assessment') with a concrete output ('PASSED/FAILED') and a scoped target ('for one device'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like smart_status and smart_attributes by highlighting the 'overall' PASSED/FAILED result rather than detailed attributes.

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 usage is implied: use this for a quick SMART health check of a single disk. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like smart_status or when not to use it, nor any mention of alternatives.

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