storage_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' prefix only echoes that. The description does add the useful context that results are scoped to a single storage pool and can be filtered by content type, but it says nothing about pagination or return shape. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a clean per-argument breakdown; every line maps to a real parameter. The 'Args:' block is slightly mechanical but wastes no words.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, all four parameters, and the default-node behavior. It leaves the return format unstated, but with no output schema that gap is minor for a listing operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: storage is tied to storage_list, node explains the default-node omission behavior, target points to config, and content supplies the actual filter values ('iso', 'images', 'backup', 'vztmpl') that the schema lacks (0 enums). Only the absence of an explicit required/optional marker for storage holds it below 5.

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 ('List') and resource ('volumes on a storage pool'), and parenthetically enumerates what those volumes are (ISOs, disk images, backups, templates). The reference to storage_list makes it distinguishable from the sibling that lists the pools themselves.

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 '[READ]' marker and 'see storage_list' pointer hint at scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs alternatives or when not to. Usage is implied by the read-only listing framing rather than stated.

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