disk_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the threshold-based flagging (DEGRADED/CRITICAL) but does not describe the output format or any potential side effects. Still, it provides sufficient behavioral context for a monitoring tool.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place, conveying key metrics and thresholds efficiently.

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?

While the description covers what data is reported, it omits the return format (e.g., structured object or text). With no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent can expect in 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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter details, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 explicitly states the tool reports root-disk usage percentage, log-directory size, 24h growth, and largest log files, with clear flagging thresholds. This is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cpu_memory_health or cron_health.

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 description implies the tool is for checking disk health and thresholds, which is clear in context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it compared to alternatives, so it doesn't fully meet the top score.

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