list_storage_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List content' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, safe, or requires any specific permissions. It also does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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 one line for the purpose plus a parameter list, which is concise and front-loaded with the key action. The parameter list could be more structured (e.g., bullet points or formatting) but it is functionally clear and not verbose.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks completeness in explaining how this tool relates to other storage-related tools (e.g., when to use list_storage vs list_storage_content). It also does not mention pagination or result size limitations. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, it is minimally complete but has 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?

The description provides parameter information beyond the schema: it lists allowed values for 'content' ('images', 'rootdir', 'vztmpl', 'iso', 'backup', 'snippets') and states that 'vmid' is a filter by VM ID. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this adds significant meaning. However, 'node' and 'storage' are left to be inferred from context.

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 'List content of a storage pool (disk images, ISOs, templates, backups).' This provides a specific verb ('List') and resource ('content of a storage pool'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_storage' (which lists storage pools) and 'get_storage_volume_info' (which gets details on a specific volume).

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for listing or getting storage information, but the description does not mention, for example, that 'get_storage_volume_info' is for individual volumes or that other list tools exist. The user must infer usage from the name and parameters.

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