get_disk_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool retrieves (disk usage and I/O stats) and the output format, but it does not disclose potential behaviors such as requiring an active SSH connection, error conditions, or performance impact. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are clearly structured. Minor redundancy exists between the first sentence and the Returns line, but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the parameter, and the return value. However, it lacks usage guidance and deeper behavioral context, making it incomplete for an agent that needs to decide between this and similar disk-related 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must and does compensate. It explains host_name as 'Named host from SSH_HOSTS config; uses default host if omitted', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's simple string/null type. It clarifies the source of valid values and the default behavior.

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 a specific action ('Get disk usage and I/O statistics') on a specific resource (disk). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_disk_health (focused on health) and get_system_overview (system-wide).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains the optional host_name parameter, but does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools like check_disk_health or get_system_overview.

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