get_storage_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool returns JSON-formatted storage status including local/remote status and pull configuration, which goes beyond the name. The verbs '获取' and '查看' imply a read-only, non-destructive operation. This adequately discloses the behavioral profile for a no-parameter status query.

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 concise, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and a clear 'Returns' section for output details. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content. The structure is easy to parse for an agent.

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 no-parameter status query, the description is reasonably complete. It states the output format and core content, and there is an output schema available. It does not explicitly mention error handling or permissions, but those are less critical given the read-only nature. The description covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly.

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, so there is nothing to add beyond the schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than parameters. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 clearly states the action ('获取' - get) and resource ('存储配置和状态' - storage configuration and status). It elaborates that it views current storage backend configuration and local/remote status, which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_status and get_current_config. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve storage configuration and status) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like get_current_config and get_system_status exist, yet no 'use this instead' guidance is given. However, the scoping to storage is evident, so the usage intent is implied strongly enough.

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