storage_list

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

The [READ] tag indicates no side effects. The description discloses that it lists storage pools with specific fields. With no annotations provided, the description adequately conveys the read-only nature and basic behavior. However, it does not mention error conditions or access 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?

Extremely concise: two-line description with clear args. Every sentence serves a purpose. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (lists storage pools) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the key output fields. It could mention whether the list is exhaustive or paginated, but that is minor.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It explains both parameters: target is 'Proxmox target name from config; omit to use the default' and node is 'Node name; omit to use the target's configured default node.' This adds clarity beyond the bare schema types.

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?

Description explicitly says 'List storage pools on a node' and details the output fields (id, type, total/used/avail bytes). The [READ] prefix clarifies operation type. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like pool_list (likely cluster-level) and storage_content (lists content of a given storage).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of exclusion criteria or when another tool (e.g., pool_list, storage_content) would be more appropriate. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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