compute.report_storage

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add operational context. It does not disclose whether this is an expensive scan, whether it requires project permissions, what 'classification' means, or how results are bounded — the one useful signal, that largest files are included, is already implied by the 'largest' parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification given the tool's three parameters and multiple storage siblings.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining inputs and return shape, and it does neither. For a reporting tool whose output format (statistics, classification, file list) is entirely undefined, this leaves material gaps.

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 0% for three parameters. The phrase 'largest files' loosely maps to the 'largest' parameter (default 20), but project_id and especially node_id — which presumably scopes the report to a single node — are never explained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Report project storage statistics, classification and largest files') and enumerates the report's contents. It falls short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as compute_check_storage, compute_scan_storage, or compute_plan_storage_cleanup, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With four storage-related siblings in the list, the absence of any routing hint leaves the agent to infer selection from names alone.

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