get_disk_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool collects disk usage via SSH and returns top 20 items, implying it is read-only and non-destructive. However, it does not disclose error handling, timeout behavior, or authentication needs beyond what the schema implies.

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 two sentences with no extraneous content. It front-loads the action and output, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the core function and output format but omits details on connection requirements, authentication methods, and error scenarios. Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, remote SSH execution), more context is needed for safe and proper usage.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description only mentions 'abs path' among 8 parameters. It fails to explain other key parameters like host, user, password, key_path, port, timeout, and accept_new_hostkey, which are critical for SSH connections.

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 the tool collects disk usage for a specific path via SSH and returns the top 20 largest items. It distinguishes from siblings like get_disk_free (free space) and get_list_of_files (no size sorting).

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 usage for checking disk usage but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. No guidance on prerequisites such as SSH access or authentication methods.

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