Storage File Exists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Check if ... exists' strongly implies a side-effect-free boolean query, and the existence of an output schema means return format need not be explained. However, it says nothing explicit about read-only semantics, permissions, or behavior for non-existent/invalid paths.

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 tight sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero wasted words. Nothing to trim and nothing important buried.

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 one-parameter existence check with a fully documented schema and an output schema covering the return value, the description is nearly sufficient. The only missing piece is any hint about path conventions or behavior for special cases.

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 100% and there is a single required parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about path format (absolute vs relative, bucket prefixes, directory conventions) beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('check if a file or directory exists') scoped to 'Oceanum storage', which is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like storage_read_file or storage_list_files. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as storage_file_info or storage_list_files, nor any note about prerequisites or typical contexts. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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