colab_local_footprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does supply the key safety fact ("Read-only") plus the categories of storage inspected. However, it omits operationally relevant traits: whether a live Colab session must exist, whether the scan is cheap or slow, and whether anything is mutated. Adequate but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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 names the resource and its parts, with the safety qualifier deliberately placed last as a short tag. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with no parameters the description has little else to cover. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, missing only whether a running session is required to measure the local footprint.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; schema coverage is 100% and the empty object is self-explanatory. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Names a specific reporting action (show disk footprint) and enumerates exactly what is measured: temp files, plots, local trash, free disk, working-directory budget. The scope is clear enough to separate it from colab_local_cleanup, though it never names that sibling. The phrase "this tool keeps on your computer" is slightly ambiguous about the referent.

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: the footprint read naturally precedes colab_local_cleanup, and "Read-only" signals a safe diagnostic, but the description never states when to call it or that cleanup is the follow-up action. No exclusions or alternatives are given despite colab_local_cleanup and colab_usage sitting directly beside it in the sibling list.

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