disk_usage

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions warning/critical severity and a recommendation, which adds some output-shape context, but it does not disclose permissions, whether it merely reads (implied, not stated), read-only nature, or any server-connectivity 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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, scope, and output semantics (severity + recommendation) with no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. For a one-parameter read tool with no annotations, the description covering action, scope, and severity/recommendation output is nearly complete, though a brief read-only assurance and server-not-found behavior would round it out.

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 coverage is 100% with the single 'server' parameter fully documented as 'the inventory server name to check'. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 would apply, but with only one well-documented required parameter the schema fully compensates, meriting 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Report per-filesystem disk usage on a Linux server') with added scope describing severity outcome. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like cpu_usage and memory_usage by signaling disk-space focus and its warning/critical interpretation.

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 implies a monitoring/diagnostic context but never states when to use this vs cpu_usage, memory_usage, or run_command for disk checks, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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