ssh_disk_breakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Reads only, nothing is deleted.' It adds useful context about what areas are inspected (docker, journald, package caches) without contradicting the annotations.

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 tight sentences. The first explains scope and read-only behavior, and the second routes to the alternative for a different need. There is no filler or repeated schema content.

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 a rich input schema, an output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers what an agent needs: what it inspects, that it is safe, and how it relates to ssh_snapshot. No critical behavioral or selection information is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does relate the tool's purpose to the 'paths' concept. It neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 pair ('Finds what filled a disk') and enumerates the concrete outputs: free space per filesystem, largest directories per path, and cache contents. It also differentiates itself from ssh_snapshot by framing this as the detailed breakdown versus the one-line fullness answer.

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 gives a clear alternative and selection rule: use ssh_snapshot when only overall disk fullness is needed, and this tool when a breakdown is required. It could be slightly more explicit about when not to use the tool, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to make the right choice.

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