ssh_disk_breakdown

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description reinforces it with 'Reads only, nothing is deleted.' It adds context about the output scope (docker, journald, package caches) which is not in the annotation. No contradiction; description supplements but does not contradict the annotation.

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?

Three short sentences achieve high information density without waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a safety note and a usage routing pointer. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 output schema exists to describe return values, and annotations convey the read-only safety, the description covers all essential operational context: purpose, scope, usage trigger, and the distinguishing alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter (sudo, paths, top_n, profile) already has a detailed description. The main description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 for a fully documented schema.

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 ('finds what filled a disk') and resource (disk), and enumerates concrete outputs: free space per filesystem, largest directories, and contents of docker, journald, and package caches. It also distinguishes itself from sibling ssh_snapshot by explaining that snapshot gives a one-line overall fullness, while this tool provides breakdown details.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it after a disk alarm' and gives a contrasting use case: 'for how full the disks are at all, ssh_snapshot answers in one line.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool and when to prefer an alternative, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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