get_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 implies a read-only operation ('report') but doesn't describe the output format, whether it scans the entire disk or just a mount point, or any side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that fronts the core action. There is no fluff. However, its brevity omits essential context, making it minimal rather than well-structured; it earns its place but doesn't provide enough value.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify whether the report covers the whole disk, a specific path, or what the output looks like. It doesn't explain how the path parameter affects results, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter. However, the description makes no mention of 'path' whatsoever. An agent receives no explanation of what the parameter does, its default value, or how it affects the report.

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 tool's purpose: 'Report disk capacity and free space.' It uses a specific verb (report) and resource (disk usage), and the subject matter distinctly separates it from siblings scan_junk and clean_junk, which deal with junk files. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the path parameter or differentiate itself by name, 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention the siblings or any conditions for when checking disk usage would be appropriate, leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be invoked.

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