Disk Usage

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not say what the response contains (filesystems, mount points, used/free/total, percentages), whether it is scoped to the local host, or what permissions/environment it requires.

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 short sentence, front-loaded and free of filler. It is not bloated, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 system-inspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what data is returned and what the scope is. As written, an agent cannot anticipate the shape or granularity of the result before calling it.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 states a verb and resource ("Get disk usage information"), but it barely exceeds a restatement of the name/title and gives no scope detail (local host? per-filesystem? remote?). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like cpu_usage, memory_usage, or system_status beyond the word "disk".

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus cpu_usage/memory_usage/system_status, which are the obvious overlapping alternatives for resource inspection. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.

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