b24_disk_storages

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

The description signals a read-only listing operation through the verb 'Lista', but annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether authentication via webhook_url is needed, what the response looks like, or any pagination/access limitations. The operation's basic side-effect-free nature is clear, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 filler. It states the action, the resource, and the storage scopes efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple list tool, the description is adequate, but it leaves gaps: the role of webhook_url is unexplained, there is no differentiation from b24_disk_folder_list, and with no output schema, the agent gets no hints about the structure or content of the returned storage list. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for confident invocation.

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 only parameter, webhook_url, has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention it at all. While the parameter name and uri format hint at its purpose, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation by explaining how or when it should be provided.

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 ('Lista') and a clear resource ('todos los storages disponibles'), with a parenthetical enumerating the storage scopes. This distinguishes it from sibling disk tools like b24_disk_folder_list and b24_disk_file_get, which operate at the folder/file level rather than the storage level.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over other disk-related tools or what conditions make it the right choice. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative comparisons, so the agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and sibling context.

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