get_storage_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by annotations. The description adds the 'local history storage' scope context, which is useful. However, it doesn't clarify what 'freshness' measures or how it relates to source data.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. Perfectly sized for a zero-parameter read-only stats tool.

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?

Has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. Zero parameters mean no param ambiguity. The tool is simple enough that a one-sentence description with rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) is nearly complete. Slight deduction for not hinting at what 'freshness' means or when it's useful.

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, and with no params, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately explains what is returned (storage counts and freshness) without any parameter burden to carry. Nothing is missing here.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Return local history storage counts and freshness'), clearly indicating what data is retrieved. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_sources or get_source_schema, but the subject matter (storage stats) is distinct enough to be understood.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of what 'storage counts' refers to or when checking storage vs querying history would be appropriate. Sibling tools like list_sources and query_history exist, but no comparison is offered.

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