storage_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool reports, and the verb 'Reporta' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that it has no side effects or describe any potential limitations. This is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and scope, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what the tool reports and the domain it covers. It could mention return format, but that is not critical for a basic status operation. The description is complete enough for its low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema already covers this fully. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on the output semantics instead.

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 ('Reporta') and clearly identifies the resource ('almacenamiento orgánico (data/)'), enumerating the covered aspects: custom patterns/presets, snapshots, state. This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like rag_status or ecosystem_status by making the storage focus explicit.

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 when to use the tool (when needing storage status), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative status tools or mention any exclusions. While the resource is clear, there is no direct guidance on tool selection among the many sibling status tools.

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