infomaniak_get_drive_full

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds that the tool uses a private manager API, which provides authentication context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous content. Every sentence adds value: first describes purpose and fields, second provides use case and sibling differentiation.

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?

For a simple get tool with output schema present, the description covers purpose, fields, use case, and API type. No gaps given the context signals and schema coverage.

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 covers the single parameter drive_id with description. Description only mentions discovering it via infomaniak_list_drives, which adds minimal value beyond schema. Baseline 3 for high coverage, slight improvement but not significant.

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?

Description clearly states it returns full kDrive detail including specific fields (name, sizes, timestamps, maintenance flag) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool infomaniak_list_drives, which uses a public API.

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?

Indicates tool is for storage usage monitoring and notes it is manager-private, contrasting with the public Bearer API of the sibling. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the distinction is clear.

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