Get Drive Usage

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does imply a read-only informational query with no side effects. It says nothing about authentication requirements, quota scoping, or freshness of the figures, but for a trivial no-arg read the remaining risk is low.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the comparison it reports. No filler; only the slightly redundant 'Human-readable' qualifier keeps it short of ideal.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values, and with no parameters and no annotations there is little else to document. It is adequate for this simple read tool, though it could note whether usage is per-user or per-tenant.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 names a specific resource (drive storage usage) and the exact quantities returned (used vs allocated vs free), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_profile or get_hostel_summary. The verb is only implied by the name rather than stated in the description, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus other read tools, nor any stated preconditions. For a zero-parameter read tool the intended use is fairly obvious, but the description provides no explicit context or exclusions.

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