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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's one added behavioral fact is the scope limit ('current working volume'), which is useful but thin; it says nothing about failure behavior if the volume is unavailable.

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 sentence that leads with the action and immediately qualifies the scope. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 needn't explain return values, and a zero-parameter tool needs little else. The only gap is the absence of any hint about when this beats system_info, which for a tool with six siblings is a real but modest omission.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free.

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 specific verb ('Return') and resource ('disk capacity') and narrows the scope to the server's current working volume, which is more precise than the bare title. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like system_info or toolbox_metrics_snapshot, which an agent might also reach for when asked about server health.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no note that this reports only one volume rather than all mounted filesystems. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'current working volume'; an agent comparing this against system_info gets no help.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that it does not read file contents — but does not disclose what 'safe metadata' actually contains or how it handles non-approved/unreadable paths.

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 well-formed sentence with the key constraint (no content read) front-loaded and no wasted words. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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 not be described. The safety profile is covered by annotations. The main residual gap is the undefined term 'approved', but for a low-complexity read tool the description is essentially sufficient.

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?

With a single 'path' parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the semantics. 'Approved readable file' hints that the path must reference a pre-approved file, adding marginal meaning, but it does not clarify path format or error behavior for unapproved paths.

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 (Return) and resource (metadata for an approved readable file), and the phrase 'without reading its contents' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling filesystem_read_text_file. It doesn't name the sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous enough for selection.

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 phrase 'approved readable file' implies a precondition (the file must be approved/readable), which gives some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not statement and no alternative tool named, so usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description usefully adds 'immediate entries' (non-recursive) and 'bounded pagination', which the annotations do not convey, but says nothing about error behavior for unapproved paths or ordering guarantees.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then the two most important scope constraints. Every word earns its place with no filler or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the full safety profile. The remaining gap is parameter semantics, which is minor for a three-parameter listing tool where the names are self-evident.

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 description provides no meaning for any of the three parameters: it never explains that 'path' is the required target, that 'limit' defaults to 50, or that 'offset' controls pagination position. 'Bounded pagination' only vaguely gestures at limit/offset without defining their semantics or bounds.

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 (List) and resource (immediate entries in a directory) with scope qualifiers ('immediate', 'approved', 'bounded pagination') that clarify it is non-recursive and sandboxed. It is clear on its own, but does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like filesystem_file_metadata or filesystem_read_text_file.

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 phrase 'approved directory' implies a precondition (only allowlisted paths are valid), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative, and no mention of what to do if a path is rejected or how this differs from reading file metadata.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by revealing an approval/allowlist gate plus type, size, and secret filtering, but it is vague about what happens on rejection or truncation and gives no error/rate-limit behavior.

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 with no padding, and the gating constraint is stated immediately after the verb. It is terse to the point of being cryptic ("path, type, size, and secret controls"), which costs it the top mark.

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 not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. What is still missing for a control-gated reader is what "approved" concretely means and how failures surface, leaving the agent to guess at failure modes.

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 no description in the schema, so the description must compensate. It mentions "path" only as a control checkpoint and never explains whether the path is absolute or relative, how it is resolved, or whether it must fall inside an allowed root.

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 (Read) and a scoped resource (bounded approved text file), which is enough to separate it from filesystem_list_directory and filesystem_file_metadata. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"after path, type, size, and secret controls" implies that reads are gated by approval/allowlist checks, which is a usable precondition hint. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings or what to do if a file fails those controls, so usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope constraint that the tool reports only an 'allowlisted' set rather than all installed tools, but says nothing about which tools or how availability is determined.

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 with no redundant clauses; every word earns its place and the scope constraint is stated immediately.

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 zero-parameter read-only probe with an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It is nearly complete, with the only gap being which tools are on the allowlist and any platform/availability caveats.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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 ('Report') and resource ('availability of an allowlisted set of common developer tools'), which is clearer than a tautology. It is distinguishable from filesystem and toolbox siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the nearby system_info tool.

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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and does not name any alternative or boundary against siblings like system_info. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: output is 'sanitized' and environment variables are deliberately not read, which tells the agent this is a privacy-safe diagnostic call.

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 that states the action and the key constraint with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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, return values need not be described, and zero parameters means no schema gaps. The description covers purpose and the sanitization boundary; it could say marginally more about what 'runtime metadata' excludes, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, which per the rubric sets a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and needs to add no further parameter detail.

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 ('Return') and resource ('OS and runtime metadata'), with a distinguishing scope qualifier ('sanitized ... without reading environment variables') that separates it from data-gathering siblings like installed_developer_tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the scope constraint makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus toolbox_server_status, toolbox_metrics_snapshot, or disk_usage, all of which also return system-level data. The 'without reading environment variables' clause hints at a privacy boundary but does not frame it as a use/don't-use condition.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them: the metrics are 'content-free' aggregates, which tells the agent no per-request payloads or sensitive content are exposed. It does not disclose the aggregation window, sampling, or refresh behavior.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and the two things measured. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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-value structure need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. The one remaining gap is the scope of the aggregate (time window or granularity), which an agent would need to interpret the numbers, though that is plausibly captured by the output schema.

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; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('aggregate request and latency metrics'), and the 'content-free' qualifier separates it from payload-returning siblings like filesystem_read_text_file. It does not explicitly position itself against the closest sibling, toolbox_server_status, but the resource is distinct enough to identify the tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as toolbox_server_status. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word 'metrics'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that — the output is "redaction-safe" — but says nothing about freshness, caching, or failure modes.

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 with no padding and the key qualifiers (server-generated, redaction-safe) front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that brevity shades into under-specification.

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 not be described, and there are no parameters to document. The remaining gap is routing: the description never says how this status differs from the several sibling status/info tools, which is the main thing an agent needs here.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty argument object is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a verb ("Return") and a resource ("status metadata"), but the resource is abstract and largely restates the tool name and title. Nothing distinguishes it from sibling tools such as system_info or toolbox_metrics_snapshot, so an agent cannot tell which status surface this covers.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this over system_info, disk_usage, or toolbox_metrics_snapshot, and no exclusions. The agent must guess based on the name alone.

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