voicebox_get_filesystem_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the returned information (disk usage, cache size, audio dir status) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential latency, or authorization requirements. The name implies a safe read operation, but explicit context is missing.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with a dash-separated list. It is front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the key output aspects. However, it could briefly mention that it is a health check command to provide more context, but overall it is adequate.

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, so schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is 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?

The description clearly states it gets filesystem health, listing specific aspects: disk usage, cache size, audio dir status. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'filesystem health', distinguishing it from siblings like voicebox_get_cache_dir and voicebox_get_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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like voicebox_get_cache_dir or voicebox_get_health. There is no mention of exclusions or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and listing.

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