can_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool checks storage quota and implies a boolean result, which is sufficient for such a simple, side-effect-free operation. However, it does not explicitly mention return values or error conditions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: 'Check' indicates the action, 'uploads are allowed' specifies the subject, and '(storage quota)' clarifies the basis of the check.

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, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It states what the tool does and its main criterion (storage quota). It could be slightly more explicit about the return type (e.g., 'returns true if uploads are allowed'), but the name and phrasing strongly imply a boolean result.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is complete (empty object). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to describe and the description correctly adds no irrelevant parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('uploads'), and clarifies the scope with '(storage quota)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_file or list_uploads, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool should be used to verify whether uploads are permitted before attempting an upload, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It provides clear context without going into when-not-to-use scenarios.

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