disk_usage_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it summarizes counts, sizes, and top subdirectories, and supports filtering. However, it does not mention aspects like symlink handling or performance characteristics, which would be helpful for a file system 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?

Two sentences effectively convey the core purpose and key features. No wasted words; the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality and filtering. It mentions maxDepth implicitly via the schema, but could be more explicit. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a summary tool.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds contextual meaning by stating that include/exclude are glob patterns for filtering, reinforcing the tool's behavior beyond the schema.

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 'Summarize total size, file count, and directory count,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions showing top subdirectories and optional glob filtering, distinguishing it from siblings like compare_directories or find_largest.

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 summarization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_directory_tree or find_largest_directories. With many sibling tools, some guidance would improve clarity.

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