list_storage

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety traits. The description adds the node scope but that is already evident from the parameter. It does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or response format specifics, so it meets the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for an agent 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description is nearly adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not clarify what 'availability and capacity' means precisely (e.g., disk space vs. storage pools). This leaves minor gaps for an agent, but the output schema likely fills in return details.

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 for the 'node' parameter. It says 'on a node', which clarifies the parameter's role as the target, but it does not explain what constitutes a node or any constraints beyond the schema's pattern. This is minimal added value over the parameter name itself.

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 action 'list' and the resource 'storage' scoped to 'a node'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_storage_content, though it does not explicitly differentiate. The phrase 'availability and capacity' is somewhat ambiguous but still conveys the core purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_storage_content or list_nodes. There are no mentions of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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