ecp_system_disk_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it aggregates data, what scope it covers, or what the response format is. The description is too vague to inform an agent about side effects, permissions, or output behavior.

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 sentence and is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads a list of resource types but does not explain the tool's purpose or output. It earns a middle score because it is short and readable, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clearly state what the tool returns and how it relates to the many sibling tools. It does not. The description is too vague to allow an agent to predict the tool's behavior or decide when to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is empty and coverage is 100% by default. The description's mention of 'usage/quota' is the only semantic content, and while vague, it is not misleading for a parameterless tool.

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 'Get disk, container, file, and database usage/quota for this account.' is a generic catch-all that does not identify a specific verb+resource. It lists four unrelated resource types (disk, container, file, database) and 'usage/quota' without stating what the tool actually does or returns. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools that also deal with files, databases, or quotas.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions. An agent cannot tell whether this is a summary/overview tool or a detailed per-resource query, and the sibling list contains many more specific tools for each resource type.

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