get_disk_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what information is retrieved but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires elevated permissions, what format the information is returned in, whether it's real-time or cached data, or if there are any rate limits. For a system information tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient Spanish phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero waste - every word contributes to understanding what the tool does. The structure is front-loaded with the complete purpose in one concise statement.

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 this is a system information retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what specific disk/partition information is returned (e.g., capacity, usage, mount points, filesystem type), whether the information is formatted for human or machine consumption, or if there are any platform limitations. For a tool that presumably returns structured system data, more context is needed.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist. No additional parameter semantics are needed beyond what the empty schema already provides.

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 'Obtener información de discos y particiones' clearly states the verb ('obtener' - get/retrieve) and resource ('información de discos y particiones' - disk and partition information). It distinguishes from siblings like get_cpu_info, get_memory_info, and get_system_info by specifying the disk/partition focus. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_file_info which might overlap in some contexts.

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. There are several sibling tools that retrieve system information (get_cpu_info, get_memory_info, get_system_info, get_network_info), but the description doesn't explain when disk/partition information is specifically needed or how this tool differs from get_system_info which might include disk information.

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