syncnology_storage_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It does specify that it returns storage pool, volume, and disk health info, which clarifies the scope of the read operation. However, it does not disclose potential caveats like rate limits, required permissions, or data granularity, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or wasted verbiage.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It identifies the key data types returned and is unambiguous relative to siblings. However, it lacks usage guidelines and broader behavioral context, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. According to the rubric, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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: retrieve storage pool, volume, and disk health info from the NAS. It uses a specific verb ('get') and names distinct resources, differentiating it from sibling tools like syncnology_system_info or syncnology_utilization.

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 explicit usage guidance or alternative tools are mentioned in the description. The intended use is implied by the name and description (retrieve storage health), but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or comparison to siblings. This is adequate but lacks clear context for selecting among related tools.

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