system_df

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

The verb 'Show' clearly signals that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is important given there are no annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior such as whether the output includes images, containers, volumes, build cache, or reclaimable space, nor any response format details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on quickly.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. It could be slightly richer by noting what the disk usage covers or that it is a non-mutating query, but the current text is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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%, and the single parameter 'verbose' is fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the exact resource ('Docker disk usage'). It is concise and clearly distinct from siblings like system_info or list_volumes, so an agent can determine this is a disk-usage reporting tool.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever Docker disk usage information is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives, prerequisites, or situations where a different tool such as system_info or list_volumes would be more appropriate.

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