get_disk_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned metrics and units (GB) and the filesystem-scoping behavior, which is useful, but does not state read-only safety, error behavior for external/mounted paths, or that it returns nothing about the path's size (vs. get_directory_size).

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?

One front-loaded sentence carrying all the key information (metrics, units, scoping), followed by a short Args block. No padding or repetition of the tool name.

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 single-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the returned metrics and their units. Without an output schema, however, it could more explicitly describe return shape (e.g., single object vs. error on nonexistent path), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 0% and the single 'path' parameter has only a default ('.') in the schema. The description compensates well by explaining path is workspace-relative and identifies which filesystem is inspected; only minor gaps (permissions, external mounts) remain. One parameter with no schema documentation triggers a low-coverage baseline needing description support.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (disk usage) with the exact metrics returned (total/used/free, in GB) and the scoping condition (filesystem containing the given path). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_memory_info, get_cpu_info, and get_system_info.

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 implied by the description — inspect the filesystem holding a workspace-relative path — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, nor a named alternative such as get_memory_info or get_system_info. Adequate but with a clear gap for an agent choosing among several info tools.

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