get_user_storage_details

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get user storage details' reveals nothing about side effects, required permissions, data scope, or whether the operation is read-only, though the name implies a getter. No behavioral traits are actually disclosed beyond what the name itself suggests.

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 six-word sentence with no filler and the verb first, so it is structurally front-loaded and efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, since every word merely reproduces the tool name and adds no new information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and that mitigates part of the gap. But with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage context, the description remains skeletal and insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly with meaningful identifiers.

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 description coverage is 0%, so both required parameters (zoid, zuid) are opaque strings with only titles. The description must compensate but never explains what either identifier means; an agent is left to guess that zuid refers to the user in question and zoid to some organization 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 'Get user storage details' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name 'get_user_storage_details' with no added specification. It identifies a verb and resource but does not define what 'storage details' encompasses (quota, usage, plan, limits) nor distinguish it from sibling tools like get_organization_subscription_details or get_user_details.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings there are closely related tools such as update_user_storage, get_user_details, and get_organization_details, but nothing tells the agent which scenario selects this one over those.

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