get_storage_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not disclose potential side effects, latency, or authentication needs. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavioral profile.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It achieves efficiency without unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description provides a hint about the output (PVCs and their status) but lacks details on whether other storage objects are included, pagination, or error scenarios. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('Cluster name' and 'Kubernetes namespace'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it gets storage information including PVCs and their status. It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover other cluster aspects like health, operators, pods, etc. However, it could be more specific about what 'storage information' includes (e.g., persistent volumes, storage classes) beyond just PVCs.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools have different purposes, the description does not provide any context on prerequisites, such as required permissions or when to use this tool for storage-related queries.

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