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 disclosing behavior. It communicates that the operation is a read-only summary and lists the data returned (quota, used, limits), but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or mention any prerequisites, rate limits, or failure conditions.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition of schema 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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema) and the description sufficiently communicates the purpose and return contents. It could mention units or that it reflects current usage, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to describe. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds clarity about what the summary includes, which compensates for the lack of input schema 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 ('Get') and resource ('account disk space usage summary'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bandwidth_usage and get_resource_usage. It also specifies the scope ('account') and the data returned ('quota, used, limits').

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 a read-only query for disk space but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_resource_usage or get_account_stats. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is only implied by the tool name and description.

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