list_storage_destinationsLists storage destinations available to the current organization. Returns opaque IDs and non-sensitive metadata only; connection details and credentials are never included.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| success | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations declaring this read-only and idempotent, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns only opaque IDs and non-sensitive metadata, and never includes connection details or credentials. This is valuable security-relevant transparency.
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 two terse, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds a meaningful limitation without unnecessary padding.
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 zero-parameter schema, rich annotations, presence of an output schema, and simple listing behavior, the description is complete. It covers scope, return content, and sensitive-data exclusion.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed; the schema already fully covers this aspect.
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 and resource: 'Lists storage destinations available to the current organization.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from sibling list tools by naming the storage-destination resource.
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 clear context by specifying that this lists storage destinations for the current organization. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the usage context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: image creation, template management, usage checks, and org resources are separated. The main ambiguity is between create_image and create_batch_images, since both create images and the batch variant's exact relationship to a single image request is not fully specified.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: create_*, list_*, get_*, check_*, and update_*. The naming is predictable and makes the tool's action and target resource immediately clear.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for an HTML/CSS to image service. Each tool covers a distinct part of the workflow: image generation, templates, batching, usage monitoring, and organization resources, without unnecessary bloat.
The core lifecycle is well covered: images can be created from HTML, URL, or template; templates can be created, updated, listed, and versioned; usage and limits are exposed. The main gap is the absence of a delete_template tool, and proxies/storage destinations are only listable with no management operations.