Inspect Whatbox Storage Capacity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces read-only with 'fixed read-only query.' However, it adds no new behavioral context beyond annotations, such as required permissions or the fact that no parameters are needed. The output schema covers return values, so the description's lack of extra context is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 that immediately states the function ('Report capacity and usage') and includes relevant qualifiers ('configured Whatbox storage roots', 'fixed read-only query') without any wasted words.

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 tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It clearly identifies the purpose and scoping ('configured roots'), and the output schema covers return values. The read-only nature is reinforced, and the tool is simple enough that no additional context is needed.

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 input schema is empty, so the schema provides 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'fixed read-only query' clarifies that no customization is expected, aligning with the empty schema. With zero parameters, this dimension is automatically well-served; the description adds minimal but sufficient context.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource: 'capacity and usage for configured Whatbox storage roots.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like whatbox_structure_map (structure) or whatbox_services_status (service status), which focus on other aspects.

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 implies usage as a read-only storage status check ('configured Whatbox storage roots using a fixed read-only query'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced.

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