get_storage_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns JSON with storage status, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, potential delays, error handling, or any effects on storage state. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 highly concise with two sentences and a Returns clause, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 (no parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential information: what it retrieves and the return format. It does not elaborate on error cases or interpretation of status values, but with an output schema, the completeness is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description appropriately adds no parameter details since there are none. It explains what the tool returns (JSON format with local/remote storage status and pull configuration), which adds value beyond the empty input schema.

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 storage configuration and status, including local and remote storage. It uses specific verbs '获取' (get) and '查看' (view) which indicate a read-only operation. Among siblings like get_system_status and get_rss_feeds_status, it is uniquely identifiable as the storage-focused status tool.

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 use for checking storage status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_system_status or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions that make this tool appropriate or inappropriate.

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