list_admin_maintenance_storage

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Given the tool is a get/list operation, the agent could infer it is read-only, but explicit disclosure 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 extremely short (3 words), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to add value beyond the tool name, and the structure lacks any elaboration.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description provides minimal context about what 'Storage Details' entails. It does not clarify the scope (e.g., admin-specific, system-wide), leaving the agent with insufficient understanding for effective 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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the single optional parameter 'accept-language'. No guidance on parameter meaning or usage is 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 'Get Storage Details' clearly indicates a retrieval operation for storage data, matching the tool name's 'list' prefix. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_admin_maintenance' which likely covers broader maintenance tasks, though it could be more specific about 'storage' context (e.g., disk usage, backups).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_admin_maintenance' or other admin storage tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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