get_storage_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read-only operation ('获取'/'查看') and describes what information will be returned (storage backend configuration, local/remote storage status, pull configuration). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this provides basic behavioral context but lacks important operational details.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, elaborating on what information it provides, and describing the return format. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. There's minimal redundancy, though the Chinese/English mixing in the Returns section is slightly awkward.

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 this is a simple read-only status tool with 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what information will be retrieved (storage configuration and status) and the return format (JSON). The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. For this complexity level, the description provides adequate context.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates this is a parameterless tool that retrieves system information without needing any inputs. No additional parameter semantics are needed since there are no parameters to document.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('获取' meaning 'get/retrieve', '查看' meaning 'view/check') and resources ('存储配置和状态' meaning 'storage configuration and status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_system_status by focusing specifically on storage, but doesn't explicitly contrast with get_current_config which might overlap. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus get_system_status (which might include storage status) or get_current_config (which might include configuration details). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without any explicit context or exclusions provided.

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