user_storage_manage_by_name_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the fact that this reads data. It omits auth requirements, pagination behavior (despite limit/offset params), what a missing key returns, and the return shape.

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?

It is short and front-loads the route, but the 'Тег: Хранилище / Спека: user' lines are internal metadata that add no value for tool selection, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 four-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient: it gives no result format, no pagination semantics despite limit/offset, and no sibling disambiguation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (name, limit, offset, user_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantics beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a verb+resource ('GET /storage/manage/{name} — read data from storage'), but it does not distinguish this 'by_name' variant from the sibling user_storage_manage_get, which is also a read of storage. The only added content is route metadata ('Tag', 'Spec'), which does not clarify purpose relative to siblings.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus user_storage_manage_get, user_storage_manage_by_name_post, or the admin_storage_manage_by_name_get variant. No preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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