roboshadow_get_disk_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It is transparent about the output shape (percentage used, encryption status, share count) and 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation. It does not cover data freshness or pagination behavior, but those are lower-risk for this kind of listing tool.

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 sentence with no filler: it front-loads the verb and resource, states scope, and packs the key output fields. Every word contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple, org-level list tool with complete schema coverage, the description provides enough to call it correctly: scope, grouping, and output fields. It could have named device-scoped alternatives or described the response format more explicitly, but those are secondary gaps for this complexity level.

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?

All three parameters already have detailed schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only organisational scope context and does not need to compensate for any schema gaps, but it also adds no parameter-specific detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a well-defined resource ('disk usage across the organisation'), then enumerates the grouping fields. The org-wide scope clearly distinguishes it from device-scoped siblings like roboshadow_get_disk_report_by_device.

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 implies the intended use case by specifying 'across the organisation', which suggests an org-level report rather than a per-device one. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or gives when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the distinction from sibling names.

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