check_storage_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Reports' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, system impact, data freshness, or whether the tool queries live data or cached results. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and output, placing key information upfront.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete, listing the reported attributes. However, it does not specify the structure (e.g., array of objects, per-disk listing) or whether a summary health status is included. Minor gap.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter documentation needed. The description adds value by detailing the output fields (type, vendor, temperature, SMART status, firmware), which is beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 applies.

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 specifies the verb 'Reports' and the resource 'per-disk health', listing specific fields (type, vendor, temperature, SMART status, firmware). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like thermal_profile (temperature focus) and monitor_system_health (broader health).

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 tool is for retrieving detailed disk health information but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like monitor_system_health or thermal_profile. No when-not-to-use or alternative names are given.

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