list_storage_deliveries

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds only the pagination behavior and scope, but nothing about pagination semantics (e.g., cursor format), rate limits, or what is returned. Minimal added context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by scope. No wasted words, though could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits return value structure, pagination mechanics, and cursor handling for the 'after' parameter. It's adequate but incomplete.

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 0% – neither parameter is described in the schema. The description mentions 'destination' which maps to destination_id but says nothing about 'after' (the pagination cursor). This leaves the most non-obvious parameter undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (delivery status for a destination) with pagination scope. Clear enough to distinguish from get_storage_delivery (singular) and list_storage_destinations, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 scope hint 'storage:read' implies a read operation, and 'for a destination' implies the required destination_id, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this vs. get_storage_delivery or list_storage_destinations.

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