list_node_storage

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose key behavioral traits. It mentions 'with usage info' but does not specify what usage info includes (e.g., size, available, used) or that this is a read-only operation. The nature of the response is not described.

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, well-structured with a header and bullet-like Args list. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameters, but given the lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema, it could be more complete by detailing the usage info fields. It is minimally adequate.

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 description adds brief explanations for each parameter (node name, filter by content type, show only enabled storage), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare names. However, it does not provide formats, allowed values, or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 it lists storage pools on a specific node with usage info. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_storage (which lists all storage) and list_storage_content (which lists content on a storage) by specifying node and optional filters.

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 implies usage by listing required and optional parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_storage or list_storage_content, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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