get_storage_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as the meaning of 'freshness', performance implications, or permissions. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich what the agent already knows.

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 sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the verb 'Return'. It is concise, informative, and contains no filler, making it easy to parse and act on immediately.

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 stats tool, the description is mostly complete. It does not elaborate on what 'freshness' means or the exact return format, but the output schema is present and likely covers these details. With no parameters and strong annotations, this level of description is sufficient.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description implicitly conveys that no arguments are required, and there is nothing to explain about parameters. This is a perfect score for parameter semantics as there is no burden.

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 clearly states the tool returns storage counts and freshness for local history, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('local history storage counts and freshness'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on fetching or querying data, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contexts, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools like query_history or list_sources. The description is purely functional and offers no decision-making support.

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