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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the actual side effect (probe file write/read) and the recovery outcome when storage had dropped out and writes were spooling to platform disk. It stops short of saying whether the probe file is cleaned up or how failures are reported.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism before the recovery semantics and the permission constraint. The second sentence is slightly convoluted ('returns new files to the own storage if it had dropped out'), but no sentence is filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, the side effect, the success outcome, and the authorization prerequisite. It leaves the failure/signal path (exceptions vs. status) unspecified, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Only one parameter (workspace_id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics including the workspace://list reference. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Checks the connection to the storage') and immediately explains the mechanism ('tries to write and read a probe file'), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_workspace_storage and get_workspace_storage_usage.

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?

Gives clear usage context — run it to validate storage connectivity and to pull newly written files back to the account's own storage — plus the prerequisite that only the account owner can invoke it. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_workspace_storage, but the 'when' is clear.

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