list_storage

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the set of storage resources included, but provides no further behavioral details, such as whether namespace filtering applies only to PVCs or how cluster-scoped PVs and StorageClasses are handled.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and explicit object list. Every word earns its place and there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the complete lack of parameter semantics and absence of usage guidance means the agent cannot confidently determine the right values or know when this tool is preferred over generic alternatives. The description is not complete enough for correct invocation in an ambiguous context.

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%, and the description gives no explanation of what 'cluster' and 'namespace' mean, what values they accept, or how namespace interacts with cluster-scoped storage resources. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 a specific action ('List') and enumerates the exact resource kinds it handles: PersistentVolumeClaims, PersistentVolumes, and StorageClasses. This makes it readily distinguishable from siblings like list_pods or list_resources without needing to inspect schemas.

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 offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_resources or get_resource, nor does it mention any selection criteria or prerequisites like cluster context. The agent is left to infer usage from the resource names alone.

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