inspect_node_storage_forensics

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 key behavioral traits: 'SLOW operation (10s+)' (performance), 'runs a debug pod on the node' (methodology), and the specific analyses performed (e.g., 'Real disk usage', 'Reclaimable space'). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or output format, leaving some gaps.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose and key constraint ('SLOW operation'). Each sentence adds value: usage guidelines, methodology, and specific analyses. No wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (deep forensic analysis), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and methodology, but could benefit from more on prerequisites or limitations to be fully comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by implying the 'node_name' parameter should be for a 'problematic' node, but doesn't specify format or constraints. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, and the description provides some context without full compensation.

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 specific action ('performs a deep forensic analysis') and resource ('of a node's storage'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_storage_usage' by emphasizing depth and forensic nature. It avoids tautology by elaborating beyond the tool name.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use ('ONLY when: 1. A specific node is problematic, 2. 'get_storage_usage' fails') and when not to use (implied by the 'ONLY' condition), with a named alternative ('get_storage_usage'). This gives clear context and exclusions.

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