List Storage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the units of total_size and available_size (MiB, with a GiB conversion hint), the 0..1 range of usage_rate, and the meaning of linked_pods. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/cursor existing, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the two operational modes and then the field semantics. Every sentence carries information; the only slight inefficiency is that unit/semantics detail precedes the workspace guidance an agent needs to pick arguments.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is largely redundant (though the unit hints are still helpful). What is missing is pagination: with limit and cursor in the schema and a list-shaped tool, an agent has no idea whether results are truncated or how to iterate, and the storage/pv_name naming mismatch is unaddressed.

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, and it only partially does: `workspace` is fully explained (id source, "all", omission) and `storage` is obliquely covered by the reference to `pv_name`. However `limit` and `cursor` are never mentioned and the description names the parameter `pv_name` while the schema calls it `storage`, leaving an agent to map the two.

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 and resource ('List the storage volumes') plus the second mode ('show one volume by its `pv_name`'), which immediately separates it from create_storage, update_storage, delete_storage and connect_storage. An agent can identify it as the read-only enumeration tool from the description alone.

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?

Gives concrete conditions for the `workspace` argument: take the id from the workspaces tool, pass "all" for every workspace, or omit when the user has a single workspace. It does not explicitly contrast the list mode with the single-volume mode or warn about needing pv_name to fetch one item, so there is no explicit when-not guidance, but the usage context is clear.

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