get_storage_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully explains that nothing is ever deleted automatically, that stored results persist and cost money, and that the directory is user-managed. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, but for a simple read-only storage summary the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary output summary and followed by a useful behavioral note about persistence and cost. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy.

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 absence of annotations, parameters, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what data is returned, where it lives, and how it behaves over time. It could be more explicit about the exact return format, but for a no-argument storage information tool it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The input schema is empty and the description fully describes what the call returns; a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear resource (local disk archive) and states exactly what the tool reports: result counts by endpoint, space usage, downloaded report files, and storage location. It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_credit_usage or get_result_slice, which address different concerns.

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 the tool is for inspecting and managing archived storage, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The intended usage is evident from context, but the guidance is not made explicit.

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