pve_get_storage

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 configuration' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the configuration is returned in (e.g., JSON, raw text), or if there are any rate limits or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe invocation.

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 'Get storage configuration' is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 complexity of storage management in a system like Proxmox VE (implied by sibling tools), the description is insufficient. No annotations are provided, and there is no output schema, so the agent doesn't know what the tool returns (e.g., configuration details, error formats). The description fails to address key contextual aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or how this tool fits into broader storage operations, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 the single parameter 'storage' documented as 'Storage ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what a 'Storage ID' is, how to find it, or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameter without additional value from the description.

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 configuration' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('storage configuration'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_storage_status' or 'pve_list_storage', leaving ambiguity about what specific aspect of storage configuration is retrieved. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.

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 such as 'pve_list_storage' (which likely lists all storages) or 'pve_get_node_storage_status' (which might focus on status rather than configuration). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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