infra_disk_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and behavior. The word 'summary' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the usage hint reinforces it as a pre-check. However, it doesn't explicitly state that no modifications are made or describe potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, tightly packed. The first sentence states what it is, the second states when to use it. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter summary tool, the description covers the core purpose and timing. An output schema exists to document return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The description correctly doesn't invent any parameters, and the baseline for zero params is a 4.

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 identifies the tool as a summary of VPS disk and Docker storage. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on storage rather than status, logs, or deploy operations. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'show', making it slightly less action-oriented.

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 phrase 'Use before heavy rebuilds' provides explicit timing guidance for when to invoke this tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but it gives clear context that this is a pre-rebuild check.

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