get_disk_space

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results cover disks/volumes 'seen by Sonarr/Radarr,' clarifying scope, but says nothing about which services are queried by default, response timing, or whether the call is cheap or expensive.

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 and followed by a concrete example. Nothing is wasted, though the example is illustrative rather than strictly necessary.

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?

A read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with an output schema, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description plus annotations plus schema cover what an agent needs; only minor gaps remain around default query behavior and result scope.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the single optional 'service' parameter is documented in-schema as 'sonarr' or 'radarr' with an omit-to-query-both default. The description mentions both services but adds no format or behavior detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Free and total space of the disks/volumes seen by Sonarr/Radarr.' An agent can tell it reports storage capacity rather than system health or queue state. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like get_system_status or get_health, which keeps it short of 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?

The example question ('How much disk space is left on the NAS?') implies when an agent would reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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