get_disk_usage

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

No annotations are provided so description carries full burden. It discloses filtering to real disks (behavioral). However, it does not mention if permissions are required, if it is safe (read-only), or what the response format looks like. With an output schema existing, the lack of format info is less critical.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and clear, though it could benefit from a slightly more verbose structure to cover parameter semantics.

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?

Given the tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but leaves out parameter documentation and usage context. For a simple tool, this might be adequate, but completeness suffers without parameter guidance.

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 only parameter 'limit' is not described. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention limit or explain its purpose. The agent gets no help understanding how to use this parameter from the description.

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 shows mounted filesystems with usage percentage, filtering to real disks only. 'get_disk_usage' is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'get_block_devices' or 'get_system_info' by focusing on usage percentage.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_block_devices' or 'get_system_info'). The description implies real disks only, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool or what prerequisites exist.

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