sysknife_get_disk_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the underlying command (df -h), which tells the agent the output is human-readable per-filesystem usage — context the annotations don't provide. It still doesn't mention pagination, truncation, or output format beyond the analogy.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the read-only qualifier and the (df -h) anchor arriving immediately. Slightly redundant phrasing ('Read-only ... — no params') that repeats what the schema/annotations already establish.

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 zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and know roughly what returns. What's missing is only differentiation from adjacent disk/mount inspection siblings.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The explicit 'no params' statement is consistent with the empty schema and sets accurate expectations.

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 and resource: 'show disk space usage for all mounted filesystems (df -h)'. The df -h analogy makes the exact scope and output style concrete. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_mounts or get_lvm_report, so it stops short of a 5.

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 and no mention of alternatives, even though get_mounts, get_lvm_report, and get_host_state overlap in the filesystem/disk domain. The 'read-only ... no params' note describes the tool but does not route the agent among siblings.

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