Simulate Storage Growth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only states 'dry-run', implying no side effects, but does not explain what the simulation returns, what data it modifies, or any behaviors beyond that. The many parameters are left unexplained.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is redundant and lacking structure. It could be more informative without adding length.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the simulation does, how inputs affect outputs, or what the response looks like.

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%, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning to the 13 parameters, such as 'to', 'from', 'proposedChange', etc. This is a critical gap.

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 it is a dry-run simulation of storage growth, but it is somewhat tautological. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'storage_growth' or 'simulate_storage_savings'. The verb 'simulate' is repeated unnecessarily.

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 many similar simulation siblings (e.g., simulate_custom_format_change, simulate_upgrade_impact). Context signals indicate a complex tool with 13 parameters, but no usage tips are given.

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