disk_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only and that results cover all mounts and top-level directories, which is useful. However, it does not explain permission requirements, output size limits, or potential latency across mounts, leaving gaps for an agent.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends key output scope and safety qualifier. Every element earns its place with no 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?

For a read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but serviceable. It covers the main output dimensions, yet lacks return format details or hints about potential host-specific differences. It is adequate but could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single host parameter, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no parameter details, but baseline for one fully described parameter is 4 since there is little to 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 resource (disk usage) and the exact output scope: all mounts plus largest top-level directories. 'read-only' further distinguishes it from mutating siblings like edit_file or run_command. It does not explicitly contrast with system_info, which may be a sibling that also reports host metrics.

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 implies the tool should be used for disk-space inspection via 'disk usage', but it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance nor names an alternative for disk-related queries. The omission of host via the schema is the only usage cue.

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