core_about

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns storage quota and usage details, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, side-effect-free behavior, or error conditions. The description adds 'equivalent to rclone about' which offers some context, but there is room for more explicit behavioral disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get remote quota') and includes a clear explanation of the return value. It is concise, with no superfluous words, and effectively communicates the tool's function.

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 tool is simple, with no output schema and no annotations. The description explains what it returns (storage quota and usage details) and provides context via the rclone equivalence. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could optionally mention the format of the returned details.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (fs, _async, _group), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get remote quota' and elaborates on returning storage quota and usage details. It distinguishes itself from sibling file-operation tools by focusing on quota information and even mentions the equivalent rclone command, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve quota and usage), but it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The equivalence to 'rclone about' offers some guidance, but it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with siblings.

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