Storm Builds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the output schema already provides (the listed fields are return content), leaving no disclosure of scope, filtering, or limits beyond the 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 compact sentence with no filler, and the primary operation ('List') is front-loaded. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing redundant is included.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is usage context — what a 'build' is in this domain and when this listing should be invoked rather than a sibling — making it adequate but with a clear gap.

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 takes zero parameters, and the empty schema is self-explanatory, which is the baseline 4 for param-less tools. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource (build aliases/programs) and enumerates returned fields (SHA-256, base, counts). However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling tools such as storm_resolve, storm_decomp, or storm_show, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it would pick this one.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite context, and no named alternative among the 20+ storm_* siblings. The agent must infer the tool's role purely from the phrase 'build aliases'.

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