appwrite_health_storage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by specifying that both local and S3 storage are verified, but fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or what constitutes a failure state.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise but does not significantly detract from the clarity of the actual content.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It adequately explains the behavioral purpose but omits critical usage details regarding the required 'site' parameter and return value structure.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the required 'site' parameter, and the description completely fails to compensate by explaining what the site parameter represents (e.g., site ID, domain, region) or its expected format.

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 the tool 'Check[s] storage health status' with specific scope clarification that it 'Verifies local and S3 storage availability.' This effectively distinguishes it from sibling health tools like appwrite_health_db or appwrite_health_cache by specifying the storage backends checked.

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 the general appwrite_health_check or other specific health endpoints. There are no stated prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for invocation.

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