maintain_storage

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists operation types without explaining side effects, permission requirements, or outcomes of each op_type. The dry_run parameter hints at safe execution but is not elaborated.

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 brief (two sentences) but front-loads the purpose. However, it sacrifices clarity by omitting necessary details for each parameter and operation.

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 five parameters, four op_type options, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error cases, or relationships between parameters like days_old and deduplication.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It only enumerates op_type values, ignoring client, dry_run, days_old, and settings. No default behaviors or allowed values beyond the schema are provided.

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 states that the tool performs storage maintenance actions including compress, deduplicate, configure, and capabilities retrieval. However, it bundles multiple distinct operations without specifying what each entails, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like compile_project_insights or sync_workspace_data.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the listed siblings. There are no scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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