user_storage_manage_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read operation via 'GET' and a list via 'Список данных', but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters, response shape, or what data is returned. This is minimal for a three-parameter listing endpoint.

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 but poorly structured for an agent: it mixes endpoint metadata ('GET /storage/manage') with Russian labels 'Тег: Хранилище' and 'Спека: user' that read like API spec fields rather than actionable guidance. Those lines likely do not earn their place, and the description lacks a front-loaded explanation of what the tool returns.

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 has three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the response structure, the meaning of 'storage' entries, or how user_id affects results beyond the schema's brief note. An agent would need to inspect the API spec externally to call this confidently.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, offset, user_id) with clear Russian descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 mostly restates the name/endpoint: 'GET /storage/manage' plus 'Список данных' (list of data). It does not explain what 'storage/manage' actually contains or how it differs from sibling tools like user_storage_manage_by_name_get or admin_storage_manage_get. An agent can infer it is a list operation, but the purpose remains vague.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling list/get tools. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned. The agent is left to guess based solely on the tool name and endpoint path.

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