get_inode_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses safety ('Read-only') and failure behavior ('fatal if df is missing or fails'). This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema, though it could also mention if any permissions are needed.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: functionality, parameter semantics, and usage guidance are all 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, output schema exists). The description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and failure mode, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter meaning by calling mount_point an 'optional exact filter', clarifying it matches exactly rather than partially.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'inode usage per filesystem via df -i'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_disk_info by scoping to inode usage and mentioning 'inode exhaustion'.

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?

Explicitly provides a usage scenario: 'Use when disk full errors persist despite free space - inode exhaustion.' This is clear context, though it does not mention when NOT to use or name alternatives.

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