storage_capacity_rca

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it is a read operation (prefixed '[READ]'), explains the ranking logic (critical/medium/high thresholds), specifies exclusions (unattached domains), and notes that findings are reported in rank order with their signals. This is substantial, though it does not mention potential rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-liner, followed by a compact explanation of the ranking logic and then a structured Args list. It is a bit long, but every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition. The structure aids scannability.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, ranking criteria, input parameters, exclusions, and reporting style. Without an output schema, it does not detail the exact return format, but it states that findings are ranked and quoted, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The context is complete for a read-only RCA tool.

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 schema provides zero descriptions for its three parameters, but the description's 'Args' section fully documents each one: events_limit (range and default), events_window_hours (range and default), and target (with omission guidance). This completely compensates for the schema gap and adds clarity beyond the bare property names.

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 precise statement: 'Storage-domain problems ranked worst first, in one call.' It clearly identifies the verb (rank) and the resource (storage-domain problems), and goes on to explain the ranking criteria in detail, distinguishing it from simple list/get tools like storage_domain_list.

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 the tool's analytical nature and its input parameters, but it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives such as storage_domain_list or event_list. The use case is implied by the RCA context, but no direct guidance is given on when to prefer this over siblings.

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