disk_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or has performance implications. The description only states the return format but lacks important behavioral context.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections but is somewhat verbose. It could be more concise while retaining clarity. Every sentence provides value, but the docstring format adds redundancy.

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, the description rightly avoids detailing return values. It adequately covers input parameters and the output nature (formatted summary string). Missing is any mention of error conditions or that the scan must exist, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully by explaining both parameters: scan_id (use list_scans to find) and top_n (default 20, max 100). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 clearly states it retrieves a detailed summary of a disk scan, listing specific return items (drive info, capacity, files/folders, top N largest). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_scans (which provides available scans) and top_entries (likely just top items without summary).

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 advises using list_scans to find scan_id, guiding the user on prerequisite usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like top_entries for simpler output.

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