list_storage_containers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields and mentions auto-pagination via the limit parameter, but does not address side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences front-load the purpose and return fields. There is no redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields. It mentions filtering and auto-pagination. However, it could be more complete by specifying any default sort order, error scenarios, or behavior when no containers are found.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal additional meaning. The schema already describes cluster_uuid filtering and limit with auto-pagination. The description neither contradicts nor significantly extends the schema definitions.

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 action (list storage containers), scope (across clusters), and what is returned (names, capacity, usage, associated cluster). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by specifying the resource type and return fields.

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 implies when to use it (when you need storage containers), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. For example, pe_list_containers is a sibling tool that might serve a similar purpose, but no differentiation is given.

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