cacheout_get_disk_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable details about the output format (total, free, used with human-readable sizes and percentages) and includes a concrete example, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 concise with three brief sentences plus a returns block. It front-loads the purpose, provides usage guidance, and gives output details without any redundant text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, safe read operation), the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, usage context, and detailed return format. The output schema is present, but the description's example enhances understanding.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and contains a single empty params object. The description explicitly states 'No parameters required.', adding meaning that the schema lacks. This clarifies usage for the agent.

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 explicitly states the tool gets current disk space on the boot volume, with a clear verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'disk usage'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cacheout_get_memory_stats (memory) and cacheout_check_alerts (alerts).

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 this tool to check for disk pressure before deciding to clean, providing a clear use case. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is sufficient given the uniqueness of disk monitoring among siblings.

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