get_quota

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The scope 'storage:read' does disclose the read-only nature, which is useful, but the description doesn't mention what the response looks like (e.g., bytes, limits, per-resource breakdown) or any required permissions. For a simple getter this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with zero waste. 'Get storage quota usage' names the action and resource, 'Scope: storage:read' adds the access context. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, so invocation is straightforward. However, there is no output schema, so the description must explain what the return value represents (usage in bytes, percentage, total quota, etc.) and it does not do so. Adequate for calling, incomplete for interpreting results.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies; the description doesn't need to add parameter details.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get storage quota usage.' The scope annotation 'storage:read' reinforces the read-only nature. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_mail or get_stats, none of which target storage quota.

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 purpose is self-evident enough that an agent would infer when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. 'Scope: storage:read' implies a read-only context, but it doesn't say 'use this instead of get_stats when you need quota details.'

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