smart_selftest_log

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'history' and the command, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, describe the output format, or mention dependencies such as SMART-capable devices. This under-specification is insufficient for full transparency.

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 a single, lean sentence that includes the underlying command for extra clarity. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core purpose and target device, but lacks usage guidance and explicit behavioral details. Given no annotations and no output schema, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only parameter 'device' is not described in the schema, but the phrase 'for one device' indicates that it identifies the target storage device. However, no format or valid values are given, so the description only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'SMART self-test history for one device' and cites `smartctl -l selftest`, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like smart_status, smart_health, and run_smart_test by focusing specifically on self-test history.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other SMART-related siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or a recommended context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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