get_disk_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (partition usage and I/O counters), but does not disclose further behaviors such as permission requirements or output format. Given the rich annotations, this is adequate.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose immediately. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it clearly states what the tool returns. There are no prerequisites, side effects, or return format details that need explanation, and the annotations cover safety. The description fully supports an agent in deciding when to invoke this tool.

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 zero parameters, the input schema provides no information, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's output, which helps the agent understand the tool's semantics despite the absence of parameters. It does not over-explain or repeat schema content.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource clearly as 'disk partition usage and I/O counters'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling monitoring tools like get_cpu_usage, get_ram_usage, and get_realtime_io, which focus on other system 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 usage for disk-related queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. For example, it does not clarify the difference from get_realtime_io, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context 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.