get_disk_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that execution can be local or remote via SSH, which adds some context, but it doesn't cover important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error handling, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details. It uses bullet points for args, which enhances readability. There's no wasted text, and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit sections.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error conditions. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but the output schema reduces the burden slightly.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'host' is optional and defaults to local execution if not provided, and that 'username' is required only if 'host' is provided. This clarifies the conditional relationship between parameters, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get filesystem usage and mount points.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('filesystem usage and mount points'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_block_devices' or 'list_directories_by_size', which might also provide disk-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 implied usage guidance by explaining when parameters are required ('required if host is provided'), which helps in understanding when to use remote vs. local execution. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_block_devices' or provide clear exclusions, so it's not fully explicit.

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