my_storage

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses key behaviors: aggregated results with resolved names, name_filter substring matching, 100-entry cap, and handling of an 'action' field. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits but covers the main usage behaviors.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and prerequisite. It is concise with no redundant information, though the action field note could be more prominent.

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 existence of an output schema, the description explains aggregation, naming, filtering, and special action field behavior. It does not cover pagination beyond the cap or error cases, but it provides a solid understanding of the tool's operation.

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 description adds meaning by explaining 'section' as bank, material storage, or shared inventory slots and 'name_filter' as substring narrowing. It does not list exact allowed values for section, but the examples are sufficient for understanding.

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 retrieves the user's account-wide storage including bank, material storage, and shared inventory slots. It distinguishes from sibling tools like my_account (account info) or search_items (general item search) by specifying the resources and requiring the user's stored API key.

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?

It mentions a prerequisite (stored API key) and how to use name_filter for narrowing, but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it. However, the context of account-specific storage versus general item searches is implied.

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