Retrieve physical and logical storage and deduplication statistics for a LayerFS workspace, preserving null measurements, to monitor capacity and storage efficiency.
Read physical/logical storage and deduplication statistics. Null measurements remain null.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds one useful data-semantics note ('Null measurements remain null'), but says nothing about cost, aggregation window, or what the returned measurements look like.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource being read, with the null-behavior note following. Nothing extraneous.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of conveying what the statistics response contains. It hints at null results but does not enumerate the measurement categories (physical vs logical vs dedup) or return shape, leaving an agent with a partially specified result set.
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 no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent inputs.
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?
States a specific verb (read) and a specific resource (physical/logical storage and deduplication statistics), which is clear enough to distinguish from commit/history-oriented siblings like layerfs_operator_store_commits and layerfs_operator_store_overwritten. However, it does not explicitly address its closest sibling layerfs_operator_files_stats, so an agent must infer which stats tool to pick.
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 versus layerfs_operator_files_stats or the other store_* tools, and no prerequisites or context conditions. Usage is only implied by the name and purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.