duMeasure disk usage for specified paths and return path-size pairs, with maxDepth controlling summary depth for structured CLI output.
Show disk usage for paths. Returns entries as [path, sizeBytes] pairs, in the order du emits them. Use maxDepth to control how deep the summary goes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to measure | |
| maxDepth | No | Depth to summarize |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entries | Yes | ||
| retained | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful return-format context ([path, sizeBytes] pairs and du emission order), but does not disclose practical traits such as performance, permissions, symlink handling, or large-output 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return format. No wasted text.
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?
The tool is simple, parameters are fully documented, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists. The description is largely complete, though it omits usage boundaries against siblings and operational caveats.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description only lightly restates maxDepth's effect and does not add significant semantics beyond 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?
States a specific verb and resource: show disk usage for paths. It clearly distinguishes disk-usage measurement from listing/inspection siblings, but does not explicitly name when to use it over ls or tree.
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?
Mentions that maxDepth controls summary depth, which gives some usage context. It does not say when to choose du over alternatives like ls, tree, or find_files, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.