get_disk_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get disk usage information.' It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens for nonexistent paths or permissions errors, how files versus directories are handled, or what form the returned information takes. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, though the extreme terseness sacrifices useful context.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description needs to convey what the tool returns; it does not. It also fails to clarify what 'disk usage information' includes or how it behaves on edge cases, leaving an agent under-informed when selecting among the many sibling tools.

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 input schema already documents the single 'path' parameter with a description and default, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), a resource ('disk usage information'), and a scope ('for a path'), making it clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_directory_listing or get_system_info. It stops short of 5 because 'disk usage information' is vague about whether it returns total, used, free space, or inode details.

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 does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or relationships to sibling tools such as get_system_info or get_directory_listing. The only usage cue is the phrase 'for a path,' which weakly implies path-based checking but provides no real guidance.

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