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. It discloses the returned information categories (quota, server, user), which implies a safe read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or output format.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The trailing 'server and user' is slightly ambiguous in phrasing, but the sentence is efficient overall.

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, annotations, or parameters, the description must explain what comes back. It lists the key return categories (used quota, available quota, server, user), which is sufficient for a simple read-only info tool, though the 'server and user' phrasing could be sharper.

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 per the baseline this starts at 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance because none exist.

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 the resource and scope precisely: storage info for the Nextcloud account, including used/available quota, server, and user. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling file-operation tools. It lacks a strong action verb ('Storage info of...' is noun-phrase), 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?

Usage is implied by the nature of the tool (check account storage/quota), and no sibling tool offers an alternative quota path. However, the description never states when to call it, when not to, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer.

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