get_node_storage_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the scan operation but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or behaves differently under failure conditions. The tool name implies a get operation, but a scan may have network effects; this is not clarified.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clear 'Args:' list for parameters. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy. The argument list is slightly verbose but effective, earning a 4.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The parameter descriptions are sufficient. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., permissions, side effects) reduces completeness. For a scanning tool with moderate complexity, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool's description adds meaningful explanations for all parameters: 'node' is the node name, 'scan_type' lists permissible values, 'server' is required for specific types. This compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the action ('Scan') and the resource ('available storage targets'), listing specific types (NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling get_node_* tools like get_node_storage_status or get_node_disks by focusing on scanning for available targets.

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?

The description provides parameter details and conditional requirements (server required for nfs, cifs, iscsi, pbs), implying usage for scanning storage targets. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_storage or get_node_storage_status, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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