Storm State Surface

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that results come from static inference rather than runtime observation — but says nothing about cost, build sensitivity, or confidence semantics despite listing 'confidence' as an output.

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?

Two terse sentences with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the static-inference caveat. It is dense but not padded.

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 values need not be described, but for a seven-parameter static-analysis tool sitting among twenty-plus siblings, the definition provides no usage routing, no parameter meaning, and no filtering behavior. An agent cannot confidently construct a call from this description alone.

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?

Seven parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them: build, limit, param, seeds, max_offset, and min_writes are entirely opaque. 'For a root object' loosely gestures at root, but the other six filters are undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (field-access surface for a root object) and enumerates the returned data (offsets, sizes, r/w, functions, confidence), so an agent knows what it produces. However it never differentiates itself from siblings like storm_xrefs or storm_write_sites, and the noun 'surface' is jargon that only the enumeration rescues.

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 only guidance is the constraint 'Static inference only,' which hints at the static-vs-dynamic distinction but never says when to pick this tool over storm_xrefs, storm_map, or storm_write_sites. No prerequisites, no exclusion criteria, no alternative routing.

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