analyze_disk_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose meaningful behavior: it safely walks the filesystem, does not follow symlinks, and skips virtual pseudo-filesystems like /proc, /sys, /dev, and /run. It also states the return format as a JSON string. It does not mention permission requirements or exact error conditions, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 well-structured and efficient. It front-loads the purpose, then provides a concise safety note, clearly labeled Args, and a clearly labeled Returns section. Every sentence provides necessary information and no filler is present.

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 analysis tool with four optional parameters, the description covers all parameters, explains traversal behavior, notes exclusions, and specifies the return format. Even though an output schema exists, the description still appropriately summarizes what the returned JSON contains. Nothing critical is missing for correct tool invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explicitly explained with its meaning, default, and applicable constraints: target_path with default '/var', max_depth with range 1-5, min_size_mb with threshold meaning, and top_n with range 1-50. This fully clarifies the schema.

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 and resource: 'Analyze disk usage for a directory to discover space bottlenecks and large files.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on logs, processes, security, or services, and immediately conveys what this tool does and why it exists.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when disk-usage analysis or space-bottleneck discovery is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools clearly overlap with this disk-analysis function, so the lack of explicit when-not-to-use guidance is acceptable.

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