list_storage_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only listing operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when storage doesn't exist. The description is minimal beyond stating the basic function.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for a listing tool with 3 parameters. The information is front-loaded with the core function stated first.

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 tool's moderate complexity (listing operation with filtering), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool does and documents all parameters, though behavioral aspects like error handling are omitted. The output schema will handle return values.

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 the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 3 parameters: node (Proxmox node name), storage_name (storage pool name with examples), and content_type (optional filter with enumerated values). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'content of a storage pool', with specific examples of content types (ISOs, templates, backups, disk images). It distinguishes from siblings like list_storages (which lists storage pools themselves) and list_backups (which lists backups specifically).

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 implies usage context by specifying what content types can be listed and mentioning the optional filter parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_backups or list_storages, nor does it provide exclusion guidance.

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