Disk Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The phrase 'bounded platform-specific command' adds a little context (it won't run unbounded, and results are platform-dependent) but says nothing about permissions, output variability across OSes, or failure modes.

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 the resource defined before the implementation note. No redundant or filler content.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and no parameters exist to document. The remaining gap is routing: the description does not say how this differs from system_info or system_health, which may also surface disk data, so an agent could still pick the wrong tool.

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, which is the baseline-4 case under the rubric. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the empty schema is consistent with a parameterless inspection call.

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 gives a specific verb (inspect) and a well-scoped resource: fixed local disk capacity and utilization. 'Fixed local disk' cleanly separates it from siblings like memory_status, cpu_status, and network_interfaces, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for disk capacity, and the 'fixed local' qualifier hints that removable/network volumes are out of scope. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing versus system_info/system_health, which plausibly overlap on disk data.

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