docker_disk_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Show' weakly implies a read, but it never confirms the operation is non-destructive, never says whether it contacts the daemon or may be slow on large hosts, and never addresses the `host` targeting behavior. With zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap for even a simple query 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, enumerating the four resource categories with no filler. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return shape need not be explained. However, with no annotations and an undocumented `host` parameter, the definition leaves an agent guessing about read-only safety and remote-host targeting, so it is only adequate rather than 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?

The single `host` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and a bare empty-string default, and the description says nothing about it — an agent cannot tell whether it is a daemon address, a context name, or a label, nor what blank means (local daemon?). With only one parameter, this is the one place the description should have compensated.

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 ('Show') and the exact resource breakdown — images, containers, volumes, build cache — which maps clearly to a `docker system df`-style aggregate report. It is distinguishable from docker_images or docker_volumes because it reports space consumed across all four categories rather than listing one resource type, though it never says so explicitly.

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 mention of the natural pairing with the docker_prune sibling (check usage before reclaiming), and no statement of prerequisites such as Docker daemon availability. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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