list_storages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no storage pools exist. The mention of 'capacity and usage info' hints at output content but lacks detail on format or completeness.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's scope and output, the second clarifies the optional parameter. There's no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, it leaves gaps in behavioral context and usage guidance. It meets basic needs but could be more comprehensive.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents the 'node' parameter as optional for filtering by node name, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage and only shows 'node' as an optional string/null). However, with 1 parameter and low schema coverage, this partially compensates but doesn't fully explain the parameter's semantics (e.g., node name format or filtering logic).

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 action ('List storage pools across the cluster') and specifies the resource ('storage pools'), including what information is returned ('with capacity and usage info'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_nodes or list_storage_content by focusing on storage pools specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like list_storage_content (which might list contents within storage pools) or explain scenarios where filtering by node is appropriate. There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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