timeweb_list_server_disks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and 'all disks' communicates scope, but it adds no context about output structure, pagination, permissions, or any side effects. It is minimally transparent but lacks depth for a tool with no structured behavioral annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given that this is a simple list tool with a small schema and no output schema, the one-liner is mostly complete but omits expected return details (e.g., disk fields, format implications). Sibling tools like timeweb_get_server_disk suggest more granular operations, but the description does not clarify what information the list includes, leaving some ambiguity for context.

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 100%: both server_id and format have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as usage nuances or relationship between parameters.

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 'List all disks attached to a server' provides a specific verb (List), a clear resource (disks), and the scope (attached to a server). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like timeweb_get_server_disk (which retrieves a single disk) and aligns with the tool's name.

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 implies the usage scenario—when you need all disks for a server—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on how it differs from timeweb_get_server_disk or other disk operations, so it stops at implied usage without exclusions.

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