storage_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'analyze' and 'identify optimization opportunities' but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the output format is. The description is vague and does not provide sufficient transparency for an agent to understand side effects or performance implications.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity comes at the cost of informativeness; it could include more key details without significant length increase. It earns its place but is on the edge of being too terse.

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 8 parameters, a nested object (thresholds), an enum (analysisType with 6 values), and no output schema. The description does not explain what each analysis type does, how thresholds affect results, or what the output looks like. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to navigate the tool effectively.

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 high (88% per context, effectively 100% as all parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds no additional explanation of parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it does not compensate for any gaps. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing storage usage and identifying optimization opportunities. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_files or search_files by focusing on analysis rather than retrieval. However, it lacks specificity about the scope (e.g., SharePoint), which is implied by the input schema but not explicitly stated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_drives, search_files, or other analysis tools. It does not include when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the schema alone.

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