disk_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation by mentioning 'usage' and the `df -h` reference, but it doesn't detail output structure or any potential side effects. Still, the command is standard and safe, so the minimal detail is acceptable.

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, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without any filler. It gets straight to the point and is well-structured.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless tool, and the presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. The `df -h` reference makes the behavior unambiguous, so the description is complete for its complexity.

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, and the input schema confirms this. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 4 applies.

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 the tool provides 'Human-readable filesystem usage' and cites the specific `df -h` command, leaving no ambiguity about its function. This distinguishes it from siblings like `list_disks` or `list_block_devices`.

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 usage context is implied by the description: use it to examine filesystem usage in a human-readable format. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as `docker_system_df`.

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