free_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., invalid paths), performance implications, or whether it requires specific permissions. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes essential details (bytes, path), making it appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic what and how but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are important for a system tool with no annotations.

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 minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It clarifies that the 'path' parameter specifies where to check disk space, but doesn't explain format (e.g., absolute vs. relative), constraints, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but remains vague.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('free disk space in bytes'), and specifies the measurement unit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, which are all torrent-related operations, making this distinction obvious but not explicit in the description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools are unrelated (torrent management), the description doesn't mention this context or any prerequisites, such as path accessibility or system permissions.

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