get_space_usage

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed disk space usage' but does not explain that it is a read-only operation, whether it requires special permissions, what the return structure looks like, or if it has any performance implications. This is a significant gap for a diagnostic tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It effectively communicates the core action, though it is brief to the point of under-specification.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and a large set of sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'detailed' entails, whether the output is aggregated or per-table, or any ordering/limitations. An agent lacks sufficient context to call it correctly or differentiate it from similar diagnostics.

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 already describes all three parameters (top, server, database) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning or nuance about parameter usage, so it earns the baseline score of 3 without any additional value.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'detailed disk space usage by table in a database', which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_table_stats or get_index_usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or edge cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling diagnostic tools. It neither states a preferred scenario nor excludes any. The implied use case from the description alone is insufficient for an agent to select it confidently among get_table_stats, get_index_usage, or get_wait_stats.

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