disk_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It only states the function without disclosing whether the operation is safe, requires elevated privileges, or covers all mount points. This is insufficient for a tool that could be used in sensitive or automated contexts.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool with no inputs and an existing output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits context such as whether it reports on all filesystems or just the root, and does not hint at the output format. Given the tool's role in diagnostics, slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema fully describes the input. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is appropriate given the absence of parameters.

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 a specific verb 'show' and clearly identifies the resource as 'filesystem space and inode usage.' This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like docker_disk_usage (Docker-specific) and system_info (broader system information).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like top_processes or network_info that might be more appropriate for different diagnostic tasks.

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