list_storage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses read-only and idempotent behavior, the aggregation algorithm when `node` is omitted, and the partial-failure handling (warning + 'partial' instead of a full exception). This is rich behavioral detail beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, parameter behavior, and failure semantics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any redundant wording. Perfect balance of completeness and brevity.

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 tool has two optional parameters and a nuanced aggregation behavior; the description covers these thoroughly, including edge cases like node fallback and per-storage partial failures. An output schema exists to document return values, so the absence of field-level detail in the description is appropriate. No critical information is missing for correct use.

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 input schema offers no descriptions for `node` or `profile`, and schema coverage is 0%. The description significantly compensates by thoroughly explaining the `node` parameter's effect on output and data source, and it references 'profile' in the context of cluster-wide behavior. However, the `profile` parameter itself remains somewhat undefined, so it adds strong but not complete semantic coverage.

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 first sentence clearly identifies the resource ('storage entries') and the output scope ('per-node status and a cluster-wide aggregate'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on guests, nodes, and backups. Though it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'list_storage' and the noun phrase make the listing purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use the `node` parameter (restrict to one node) versus omitting it (cluster-wide with a fallback), effectively guiding usage. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one, but the read-only and idempotent nature implies appropriate scenarios.

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