storage_list

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the [READ] prefix is redundant with it. The description adds useful value by enumerating the returned fields, but discloses nothing about permissions, target resolution failures, or the shape/size of the result set.

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 with purpose and return fields, followed by a compact two-entry args block; every line earns its place. Slightly mechanical in structure but nothing extraneous.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and both parameters' default behavior. Only pagination/result-size behavior is left unaddressed, which is minor here.

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 carries the burden and does it well: it explains that target comes from config and may be omitted for the default, and that node falls back to the target's configured default node. That default-resolution chain is meaningful semantics not present anywhere in the schema.

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 ("List storage pools on a node") and even names the returned fields (id, type, total/used/avail bytes), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling storage_content, which is a close neighbor, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the [READ] tag and "List storage pools" make the intent obvious, and the args section explains default fallback behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus storage_content or guidance on when listing pools is the right call.

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