disk_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does mention the exclusion of certain filesystem types, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only nature, output structure, or potential side effects. The provided transparency is minimal but not absent.

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, focused sentence that delivers the core purpose and key exclusions without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and important exclusions. It could add more about return fields, but given the schema and simplicity, the description suffices.

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 100%: the only parameter 'format' is fully described in the schema with enum and default. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so it relies on the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's specific function: reporting disk usage per mount point. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., gpu_status, memory_detail) by clearly focusing on disk usage, and the exclusion of tmpfs/devtmpfs/efivarfs adds further specificity.

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 when to use the tool (when disk usage per mount point is needed) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. No guidance is given on when not to use it or which sibling tool might be preferable for related tasks.

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