storage_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the read-only nature ('List') and the optional content_type filter, but does not detail return format, pagination, error behavior, or permissions. For a simple listing operation, this is minimally adequate but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every phrase earns its place: the verb, resource scope, examples, and filter option are all included without unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a straightforward list operation: what is listed, where, and how to filter. Return format is not described, but for a list of items it is reasonably inferable. It is complete enough for the tool's simplicity, though slightly more detail (e.g., return structure) would make it stronger.

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?

Despite the 0% schema coverage indicator, the description effectively explains parameter meaning: 'storage pool' maps to the storage parameter, 'on a node' implies the node parameter, and 'optional content_type filter' explicitly defines the filter's role. This adds value beyond the bare schema variable names.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('volume items') with scope ('inside a storage pool on a node'), and enumerates concrete content types (VM disks, ISOs, LXC templates, backups). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_storage or storage_status by focusing on content-level enumeration rather than status or pool-level listing.

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 usage: use this tool when you need to enumerate volume items in a storage pool. However, it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives among the many sibling tools. The context is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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