get_storage_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies read-only behavior ('查看') and fully discloses the return structure, including nested fields for local and remote storage, making behavior transparent.

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 well-structured with clear sections (summary, returns, example), no fluff, and the return format is presented in an easily scannable tree-like layout. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for a zero-parameter tool: it covers purpose, full output schema details, and even a usage example. Nothing important is missing, and the presence of an output schema (or documented return) makes it self-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 0 parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and no parameter semantics are needed; the description adds no parameter details because there are none.

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 '获取存储配置和状态' (get storage config and status) and details local/remote storage status, making it distinct from siblings like get_system_status and get_current_config.

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 context for when to use the tool (view storage status) and includes an example 'get_storage_status() # 查看所有存储状态'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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