du_quick

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait that it does not recurse, and the read-only nature is implied by 'summary', but nothing is said about permissions, error cases, symlink handling, or performance limits.

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 gives the purpose and scope immediately. The appended 'Return Format' block is somewhat redundant given a machine-readable output schema already exists, costing it a point against a strictly minimal ideal.

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?

The description covers scope, verb, and resource, and the output shape is documented both inline and via an output schema, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. Missing only alternate-tool routing and failure-mode behavior for full completeness.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('Directory path to analyze'), so the bar is low. The description reinforces that the path is expected to be a directory, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making a baseline-plus score appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('disk usage summary for a directory') plus a meaningful scope qualifier ('one level, no recursion into children'), which implicitly separates it from the recursive sibling du. It does not name the alternative tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 word 'Quick' plus 'one level, no recursion' implies this is for shallow, fast overviews as opposed to a full recursive scan, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given and the sibling du is never mentioned. Usage must be inferred from the scope phrase.

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