test_storage_path

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no mutation, and the description adds that this is a dry-run-style test ('would resolve') rather than an actual creation. However, it does not describe what the test returns, how resolution works, or any limitations, so it adds only modest behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second adds practical usage context. The description is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a simple read-only test tool given the readOnlyHint annotation and schema coverage of the main parameters. However, it does not explain what the response looks like or how the optional matching parameters influence which documents are used for the test, which would help an agent use it correctly.

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 only 60%, and the description does not add meaning for the undocumented parameters ('match', 'is_insensitive') or otherwise clarify how parameters affect resolution. It mostly restates 'path template' without explaining parameter behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Test'), a clear resource ('a storage path template'), and the outcome ('how it would resolve for documents'). It also positions the tool as a validation step before creating or updating storage paths, which distinguishes it from sibling storage-path tools.

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 explicitly says it is useful for validating path templates before creating or updating storage paths, giving clear context on when to use it. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended use is clear.

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