disk_info

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

Annotations already establish read-only/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns capacity/free-space and enforces the machine access policy on the supplied path. It does not describe error behavior or return formatting, but this is minor for such a simple read 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core behavior and then states the access constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with complete schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is almost sufficient. It would benefit from stating the output shape/units or handling of disallowed paths, but no output schema exists and the core semantics are clear.

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 fully documents the path parameter, including relative-to-workspace-root and allowed absolute paths, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only restates that the path must be allowed by policy, adding little parametric meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names a concrete resource ('filesystem capacity and free-space information'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling file/system tools like file_info or environment_info. The path scoping is also stated.

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 purpose implies when to use it—when filesystem capacity/free space for a path is needed—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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