Storage Pools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '列出' implies a read-only listing operation, but the description does not state whether authentication is required, whether results are paginated, or what safety profile applies. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond the implied read.

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 zero waste. Every word earns its place, and there is no extraneous content. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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 that the input schema has full parameter descriptions and an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations, the complete absence of usage context or sibling differentiation leaves a gap an agent must fill by inference. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four optional parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) with descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb and resource: '列出存储池' (list storage pools). It is specific enough for an agent to understand the core action, but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like storage_overview, storage_space, or storage_disks, which all deal with storage entities. No sibling routing is provided.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, authentication context, or how it relates to other storage listing tools. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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