system_disk_usage

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only measurement but never says whether the path must exist, whether it recurses into subdirectories, how permission errors are handled, or whether the call is side-effect free.

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 with no filler, and the returned metrics are stated up front. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with an undocumented parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the tool is inherently simple. However, the ambiguous path semantics and the absence of any read-only/mutation statement leave meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says 'for a path' and never clarifies relative-vs-absolute resolution, the '.' default, or whether files are accepted in addition to directories.

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?

States a specific resource (disk usage statistics) and enumerates the returned metrics (total/used/free bytes and percent) scoped to a path. It is distinguishable from siblings like system_info and system_env_vars, though it doesn't explicitly name the contrast.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer system_info or other system tools, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer that this is the disk-space tool from the title alone.

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