get_inode_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it runs 'df -i' via SSH, but fails to disclose authentication methods, potential for connection failures, timeout behavior, or output format. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 clear sentence with no fluff. It could benefit from additional structure but remains appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 complexity of SSH-based tools (authentication, timeout, host key acceptance) and 7 parameters with no schema descriptions, the description lacks crucial details about how to invoke the tool correctly. The existence of an output schema is noted but not leveraged to reduce description burden.

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%, meaning no parameters are described in the schema. The description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (host, user, port, password, key_path, timeout, accept_new_hostkey), leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 action 'collects', resource 'inode usage', and method 'via SSH' with the specific command 'df -i'. It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on disk space by specifically mentioning inodes.

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 like get_disk_free or get_disk_usage. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, which is critical given the 24 sibling tools.

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