hpc_storage_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the scope of what is measured (configured filesystems, user quota), with no detail on output shape, units, or whether it reflects live or cached values.

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 short fragment with no padding and the key resource front-loaded. The telegraphic '(df)' parenthetical and lacking verb cost it a point, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it only gestures at the two categories (filesystems, quota) without saying what fields, units, or per-filesystem granularity to expect. Acceptable for a simple read, but incomplete for an agent that needs to interpret or parse the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the empty schema is consistent with a no-argument status query.

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 names a concrete resource and outcome — free space on configured filesystems plus the user's quota — which no sibling tool covers (they are all file, job, or cluster oriented). It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a verb+resource statement ('report free space...'), so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or context (e.g. 'use before submitting large jobs to check quota'). Usage must be inferred entirely from the topic.

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