read_storage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which cover the basic read-only/open-world profile. The description adds value by explaining the storage hierarchy, the publicData/userData split, and the select/where syntax, giving behavior beyond what annotations communicate.

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 compact and well-structured, front-loading the domain context before the three argument modes. It avoids filler but is somewhat dense with storage-specific jargon such as 'select/where in storage syntax'.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return shapes; it does explain what each mode returns, but it omits details like pagination, error cases, or the exact fields available in a group object. The select/where example helps but is not a complete grammar.

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 only 20% (only limit has a description), so the description carries most of the semantic weight. It clarifies key and group semantics and provides a concrete select/where example, though a fuller syntax specification for where/select would improve it further.

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 resource (storage with views, boards, settings) and clearly enumerates what the tool returns for each argument combination: groups, storages, or a single storage. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling read tools, but the storage focus is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 gives clear usage patterns via the 'No group / Group / Group + key' conditions, which effectively tells the agent how to shape a call. It does not mention when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives, but the provided branching guidance is concrete and actionable.

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