Monitor disk usage for critical paths and analyze pacman package cache to manage storage.
[MONITORING] Unified storage analysis tool. Actions: disk_usage (check disk space for critical paths), cache_stats (analyze pacman package cache). Works on any system for disk_usage, Arch only for cache_stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Analysis type to perform |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description reinforces this with '[MONITORING]' and describes the actions as checks and analyses. It adds platform-specific behavior for cache_stats, which is beyond annotations. No mention of potential permissions (e.g., sudo) but adequate given read-only nature.
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: first states overall purpose and lists actions, second specifies platform constraints. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information. Efficient and clear.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: tool category, available actions, and platform-specific usage. For a simple tool with one parameter and no nested objects, the description is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 has one required parameter 'action' with enum values and description. The description enriches each enum value with behavior: 'disk_usage (check disk space for critical paths)', 'cache_stats (analyze pacman package cache)'. This provides meaning beyond the schema's enum labels.
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 it is a monitoring tool for storage analysis, listing two specific actions ('disk_usage', 'cache_stats') with brief descriptions. It distinguishes from sibling tools by prefixing '[MONITORING]' and specifying platform constraints.
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 per-action platform constraints: 'Works on any system for disk_usage, Arch only for cache_stats.' It gives clear guidance on when each action is applicable, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_makepkg_conf' or 'diagnose_system'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.