ACTION_GET_STORAGE_INFO

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real value: the exact output variable names (including storage_success and storage_error) and the fact that results are returned as a variable-snapshot JSON object. However, it says nothing about permissions, platform constraints, or whether a failed read still returns partial fields, which matters for a device-state query.

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 in the first clause, followed by output fields and then a workflow-behavior note; no filler sentences. The output-field enumeration is long but earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 zero-required-parameter device-state read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and variable-snapshot semantics, which is what an agent needs to invoke and consume it. The remaining gap is the lack of any routing guidance against the many sibling read tools.

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 three parameters (require, on_error, node_timeout_ms) are already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only an adjacent note that string parameters support ${var} interpolation, which is useful context but does not deepen any individual parameter's meaning.

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 specific verb and resource: read internal storage space, with units (bytes) made explicit. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as ACTION_GET_DEVICE_INFO or ACTION_GET_TRAFFIC, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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 similar read tools like ACTION_GET_DEVICE_INFO or ACTION_GET_TRAFFIC, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that this is a straightforward storage-status read from the purpose line alone.

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