Linux Disk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Disk and file system usage' and does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether elevated privileges are needed, or what filesystem scope it covers.

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 short, but it is a noun phrase rather than a structured tool definition. It is under-specified rather than concise, and a single vague phrase is not enough to earn a higher score.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the tool has no annotations, an opaque params bag, and a two-word domain label. An agent cannot determine what action is performed, what to pass in, or how the result relates to sibling diagnostic tools.

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 schema provides only an unconstrained 'params' object with additionalProperties true and 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what keys, filters, or formats are accepted, so an agent has no meaningful way to construct parameters.

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 'Disk and file system usage' identifies the resource area and narrows to usage, but it lacks a verb and does not state the exact operation (show, list, monitor). It separates the domain from memory/network tools, but not clearly from linux_host_stats or docker_system_df.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use linux_disk versus the many sibling tools such as linux_host_stats or docker_system_df. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references are given, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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