list_storage

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

The description implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is accurate. With no annotations provided, the description should carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any other behavioral traits (e.g., authorization requirements, rate limits), but the operation is simple and safe.

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 concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a clear list of arguments. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which describes return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose and parameters. Minor omission: the default behavior of 'enabled' is mentioned but could be more explicit.

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, so the description compensates by explaining the 'type' parameter (listing possible values like dir, lvm, etc.) and the 'enabled' parameter (default True). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it could be more precise about value formats.

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 tool lists all configured storage pools at the datacenter level. It includes optional filters for type and enabled status. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_storage_content' or 'list_directory_storage', which operate on different aspects of storage.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to list storage pools) and mentions available filters. It lacks guidance on when not to use it, such as when needing storage content or node-specific storage, and does not reference alternative tools.

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