pve_get_node_storage_status

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. 'Get storage status' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns real-time or cached data, has rate limits, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON with metrics). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and waste-free. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified, but for this dimension alone, it scores high due to its brevity and lack of redundant information.

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 the tool's complexity (a read operation with two required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'storage status' includes, how to interpret results, or any behavioral aspects. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions ('node' as node name and 'storage' as storage ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 'Get storage status' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_get_node_storage_status'. While it indicates a read operation ('Get') and the resource ('storage status'), it lacks specificity about what 'storage status' entails (e.g., capacity, usage, health) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_get_storage' or 'pve_list_node_storage_content'. This makes it vague and minimally informative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., node-specific storage), or differentiate it from similar sibling tools (e.g., 'pve_get_storage' for general storage info or 'pve_list_node_storage' for listing storage). This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction.

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