GetDiskTotalData

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what data is retrieved without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a cloud monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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?

For a cloud monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the returned data looks like (metrics format, units, time periods), doesn't mention authentication requirements for Alibaba Cloud API access, and doesn't provide context about the monitoring system this integrates with. The description alone leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (InstanceIds and RegionId) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 '获取磁盘分区总容量指标数据' clearly states the action (获取/get) and resource (磁盘分区总容量指标数据/total disk partition capacity metric data). It distinguishes from siblings like GetDiskUsageData and GetDiskUsedData by specifying total capacity rather than usage metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like GetDiskUsageData and GetDiskUsedData that measure different disk metrics, there's no indication of when total capacity data is needed versus usage data. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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