sonarr_get_diskspace

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, so the description doesn't need to disclose that. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic action, but it is consistent with the annotation and not misleading. With annotations lowering the bar, this minimal disclosure is adequate though not rich.

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 a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the main purpose. There is no bloat or repetition, making it highly concise for a tool with zero parameters.

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 with no inputs, and an output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, the description lacks context about what 'diskspace' actually provides (e.g., used space, free space, all mounts) and how it relates to sibling filesystem tools. This makes the description minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent choosing among similar tools.

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 has zero parameters, so the description isn't required to explain parameter semantics. The schema is fully covered (vacuously), and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate given there are none.

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 'List diskspace' provides a clear verb ('List') and resource ('diskspace'), which directly states what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sonarr_list_filesystem' or clarify what 'diskspace' encompasses, so it loses a point for lack of sibling differentiation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'sonarr_list_filesystem' or 'sonarr_get_system_status.' There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making the usage context entirely implicit.

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