get_storage_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool queries a GET endpoint, implying read-only behavior, and details the exact return fields (used_bytes, free_bytes, total_bytes). It doesn't mention error handling or auth, but for a simple read-only status getter, this is reasonably transparent.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with the main purpose, then gives the API method, a bulleted list of return fields, and a practical use case. No sentence is wasted, and the format is easy to scan.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only operation, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, why to use it, and how it differs from similar tools. It lacks error details, but that is not essential for this simple getter.

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 the schema covers 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately notes the return structure instead.

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 tool's purpose: to retrieve storage capacity information from the Busy Bar device. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('storage capacity'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_storage_files by focusing on capacity rather than file listing.

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 provides a clear use case: checking available storage before uploading files/media and monitoring consumption over time. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the use case gives sufficient context for when to use this tool.

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