List storage targets

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: credentials in the configuration are redacted, and it clarifies that the tool reports sync status and last error. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the resource, example backends, returned fields, and a security note. Every clause adds value and there is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description sufficiently defines what an agent will get back: storage backends with sync status and last error, plus credential redaction. It does not specify output field formats, but no output schema is present, and the high-level summary is adequate for correct invocation.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than parameter details.

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 identifies the exact resource ('configured storage backends'), the kind of data returned ('sync status and last error'), and gives concrete examples (git mirrors, S3 buckets, local file dumps). This goes beyond the title and distinguishes it from generic list_* siblings.

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 use case: checking the configured storage backends and their health. There are no storage-specific sibling tools, so no exclusions or alternatives are needed. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use when...', the context is clear.

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