get_disk_usage

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Returns local disk usage statistics' without detailing what statistics are included, whether they are real-time, system-wide, or per-volume, or what the return format looks like. This is insufficient for an agent to predict system impact or output.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's core function with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read operation.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description meets the minimum viability but leaves unspecified what 'disk usage statistics' includes, which could cause ambiguity. With siblings like 'get_storage_scan' present, more detail on the scope or format would improve 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object), so there is no gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and names the resource 'local disk usage statistics', making it clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_storage_scan', but the name and description align well enough to infer the function.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_storage_scan' or 'run_disk_cleanup'. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases without exclusions or context.

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