Storage Growth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, destructive, rate limits). The description gives no insight into what happens when called.

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 extremely short (4 words) but lacks substance. Conciseness is undermined by under-specification; every word should earn its place, but this fails to inform adequately.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover any contextual details needed for correct use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description does not describe any parameter meaning beyond the schema. It adds no value, leaving the agent to guess the purpose of fields like 'detail', 'groupBy', etc.

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 a verb ('Estimate') and a resource ('storage growth'), but is vague by saying 'from history' without specifying what history or what kind of growth. It distinguishes from siblings like 'simulate_storage_growth' by suggesting real estimation, but the lack of detail lowers clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'library_growth_statistics' or 'simulate_storage_growth'. No exclusions or context provided.

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