cluster_monitor_disk

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: measurements may be up to a minute stale and are reused unless force is set. This caching behavior is exactly the kind of trait an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool reports, followed by a compact Args block. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter read tool with no wasted sentences, though the Args formatting reads slightly like schema restatement.

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 monitoring tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description covers both what data is returned and how the parameter changes behavior. Only the relationship to the other cluster_monitor_* tools is left unaddressed.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: force is explained as re-measuring the SingleStore directories immediately versus reusing a measurement up to a minute old. That fully specifies the one parameter's effect and default behavior.

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 resource and verb-implied action: disk use per node broken down by type, per mount, and top databases/tables. This is concrete and distinguishable from other monitor tools, but it never names or contrasts itself against siblings like cluster_monitor_io or cluster_monitor_bottomless, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 reach for this tool versus other cluster_monitor_* tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the caching note attached to force, which is about invocation mechanics rather than selection.

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