get_disk_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what data is shown (size, used, available) but omits important traits like whether it is read-only, permission requirements, error behavior for invalid paths, or whether it reports on all filesystems or just the specified path.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No extraneous content.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential information. However, it lacks details such as what happens when path is omitted (defaults to root, per schema) and whether multiple filesystems are reported. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any new meaning beyond the schema's description of the 'path' parameter ('Mount point or path to check'). The parameter is simple and well-defined by 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 clearly states the tool gets disk usage statistics for filesystems, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on ports, containers, CPU/RAM, and logs. The verb 'get' and resource 'disk usage statistics' are precise, though it could explicitly state that it shows all filesystems or just one.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like other monitoring tools. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and siblings.

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