analyze_file_distribution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful scope limits ('cannot delete files', 'cap scanning'), but mostly restates the read-only nature and discloses nothing about performance cost or output shape beyond what the schema carries.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the constraints trailing; no sentence is wasted. The all-caps lead-in and line break are slightly noisy but cost nothing in length.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations plus 100% schema coverage fill the rest. It is nearly complete, only omitting any note on expected runtime or cost for large scans, which the max_files mention partly addresses.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (path, top_n, max_depth, max_files) is already documented with defaults and ranges. The description only echoes max_files as a cap, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('READ-ONLY DIRECTORY SCAN') and enumerates exactly what the tool produces: counts, extensions, sizes, and largest paths. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling simulate_disk_allocation by stating it is 'not a disk-allocation simulation.' An agent can identify this tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

'Use max_files to cap scanning' gives a concrete usage tip, and the negation 'not a disk-allocation simulation' implicitly rules out one sibling. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus get_filesystem_info or monitor_file_metadata, so routing guidance is only implied.

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