snapshot_disk_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Report' conveys a read-only, non-mutating behavior, which is the main safety-relevant trait. But nothing is disclosed about operational behavior such as scan cost for large directories, behavior when the snapshot directory is missing or empty, or whether 'per-playlist breakdown' implies a specific directory structure.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the output summary enumerated afterward. Zero filler words; every segment earns its place.

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 reference to 'snapshot directory' is ambiguous within a toolset that has playlist snapshots, library snapshots, and backups, so the scope is unclear. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what the directory maps to, preconditions, and empty/missing-directory behavior; it covers output contents but leaves these operational gaps.

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 coverage is 100%: the single optional response_format parameter is fully documented with enum values, defaults, and descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable per baseline since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (Report), a specific resource (disk usage of the snapshot directory), and enumerates the exact output contents (total size, file count, per-playlist breakdown, largest files). This clearly differentiates it from the many playlist-snapshot and library-snapshot siblings, which concern snapshot contents rather than storage footprint.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would select this when disk usage of snapshots is requested. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., snapshot_stats_report, snapshot_registry_report, list_backups) and gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, which matters in a sibling list of ~400 tools.

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