list_project_storages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's extra disclosure is the domain fact that the API exposes no mutation endpoint at all for this resource. That is useful context beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about pagination behavior or result shape.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The parenthetical qualifier about filtering to one project is slightly redundant with the tool name but nothing is wasted.

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 four-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the essential scoping and safety context. Return shape and pagination are covered by the schema's limit/offset semantics and the select field, so no significant gap remains.

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?

All four parameters carry full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting for limit, offset, select, and project. The description adds only the notion of an optional project filter and no syntax or matching details beyond what the schema already 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 (list) and a precise resource (a project's links to configured external file storages), and clarifies the optional project filter. It doesn't explicitly name the singular sibling get_project_storage, so sibling differentiation rests on the list/get convention rather than on the text.

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?

Tells the agent explicitly that there is no create/update/delete endpoint for this resource and that connection management belongs to the storages tools, which is a genuine when-not cue. The alternative is named only as a generic tool family, not a specific tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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