storage_read

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does well on the payoff shape: it discloses the text-vs-base64 decision, the maxBytes cap, and that 'truncated' signals more content remains. It says nothing about error behavior for missing objects, permission requirements, or whether reads are counted/rate-limited — gaps that matter for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence with the core action and the return-value contract front-loaded, then truncation semantics. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every clause adds information.

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 four-parameter read with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the one thing the schema cannot: the actual return shape (inline text vs base64 plus a truncation flag). Only the missing-object and permission behavior keep it from being fully complete.

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 100%, with enums and bounds already documented on every parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces maxBytes and the encoding outcome but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('Read a Storage object's content') and immediately describes what comes back (text inline for textual types, base64 otherwise). This implicitly separates it from storage_get_metadata and storage_list, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — you call this when you need the bytes of an object rather than its metadata — but there is no explicit 'use this instead of storage_get_metadata when...' guidance, and no mention of what happens if the path does not exist. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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