get_disk_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the tool covers all drives and root folders visible to Sonarr and reports both free and total space. However, it does not mention units, response shape, or potential errors or latency for large/unavailable drives.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the scope. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 no-parameter, read-only utility with no annotations and no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent exactly what will be retrieved and for which targets.

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 schema is trivially fully described, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The zero-parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource (free and total disk space), and a precise scope ('every drive and root folder Sonarr can see'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many sibling tools, none of which target disk-space enumeration.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools.

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