get_system_disk

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context by framing the result as a static snapshot, distinguishing it from live usage monitoring and listing the fields an agent can expect.

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?

Two sentences contain only essential information: the output contents are front-loaded and the usage boundary follows immediately. There is no redundant wording.

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 tool with clear annotations, the description fully specifies what the agent will get and when it should instead choose get_disk_usage. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the enumerated fields in the first sentence.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is missing and no parameter semantics are needed.

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 specifies exactly what the tool returns: partition names, mount points, filesystem types, and total sizes. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling get_disk_usage by describing a static layout rather than usage stats.

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?

It provides an explicit when-to-use ('drive partitions or disk setup') and a direct when-not-to-use ('Do NOT use for free space or usage stats') with the named alternative get_disk_usage. No inference is required.

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