disk_usage

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

Beyond stating 'Requires system.read', the description discloses no behavioral traits such as return format, read-only nature, or potential side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 two pieces of information: the purpose and the permission requirement. Every word contributes, with 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 tool, the description conveys the core purpose and a permission note, but lacks usage guidance and return behavior. It is minimally viable but not fully self-contained.

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 covers the only parameter (path) with 100% coverage and a clear description. The tool description's 'for a path' adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient.

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 statement 'Get disk usage for a path' clearly specifies a specific verb (get) and resource (disk usage for a path), distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_usage and file_info. The scope is well-defined.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., file_info, memory_usage). The only extra sentence mentions a permission requirement, not usage context or exclusions.

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