get_storage_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('查看...状态'), but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or makes network calls. It also doesn't mention how failures or empty states are represented, though the output schema likely covers the return structure.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, but there is redundancy between the title ('获取存储配置和状态') and the first sentence ('查看当前存储后端配置...'). The Returns section is clear. It could be tightened, but overall it is well-structured and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 is complete given the tool's simplicity: no parameters, an output schema explains return fields, and the description adds that the status includes local/remote status and pull config. It lacks any mention of operational caveats or when it is safe to call, but for a status query these are minimal. The presence of the output schema reduces the need for the description to elaborate on return values.

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 and the schema has no properties, so the schema fully covers all parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist. No deduction 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 a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('存储配置和状态'), and the expanded text details exactly what it returns: storage backend configuration, local/remote status, and pull config. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_status (system status) and get_rss_feeds_status (RSS feed status).

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_system_status or get_current_config. The description does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would select this over its siblings. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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