get_disk_usage

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of required credentials, whether an SSH session must be pre-established, behavior on unreachable hosts, or any other trait beyond the bare purpose.

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?

A single short sentence with the key qualifier ('Legacy compatibility') front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with no annotations, an undocumented parameter, and a sibling (ssh_get_disk_usage) that appears to overlap almost exactly, the description does not give an agent enough to choose or invoke confidently.

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 single required parameter, hostname, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about its expected format (FQDN vs inventory alias) or resolution behavior. With one undocumented parameter, the schema-plus-description pair leaves real ambiguity.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource (get disk usage from a Linux host), which is more specific than the title alone. The 'Legacy compatibility' prefix hints at how it differs from the ssh_get_disk_usage sibling, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is only implied.

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?

'Legacy compatibility' implies this is a fallback to be used only for older setups, which is weak but real usage guidance. It does not name the preferred alternative (ssh_get_disk_usage) or state the condition that should select one over the other.

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