Storage Space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers almost nothing. It implies a read-only query but does not state whether authentication/session is required, whether it uses the profile/session parameters, or how it behaves against an unreachable host. Only the bare read implication is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is as much under-specification as concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, the description should at least clarify scope relative to storage_overview and note the session/profile fallback behavior; it supplies none of that.

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 100% (host, port, scheme, profile are each documented in Chinese), so the schema already does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond that, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('查看存储空间容量' / view storage space capacity), so the basic purpose is legible. However, it gives no way to distinguish this from siblings like storage_overview, storage_pools, or monitor_disk, which all plausibly report storage capacity. The agent must guess where this fits in that family.

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 guidance on when to call this versus storage_overview or the other storage_* tools, and no mention of prerequisites. The only implicit signal is the bare verb 'view', which is not enough to route between ~15 storage siblings.

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