Disk information

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's burden is lighter. The description says 'get details', which is consistent, but adds no extra context about permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 short sentence (8 words), which is concise but overly terse. It is front-loaded with 'Get details', but lacks critical information about parameters and return values, making it incomplete rather than efficiently compact.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what 'details' include (e.g., filesystem names, sizes, usage). It omits this entirely, leaving the agent without enough context to understand what the tool returns.

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 sole parameter 'host' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description fails to mention or explain it. The phrase 'system filesystems' is ambiguous and may mislead the agent into thinking no host is needed. Description does not add meaning beyond the raw 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves details about system filesystems and free space. The verb 'get' and resource 'disk info' are specific and distinguish this from sibling tools like get_cpu_info or run_ssh.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer siblings like get_cpu_info or get_service_status, nor does it contraindicate usage scenarios.

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