get_storage_schema

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It describes an extraction operation that appears non-destructive, but does not explicitly state that it does not modify the codebase or depend on runtime state. Missing details about side effects or resource usage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and efficiently structured. No redundant or extraneous text.

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 output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool does and what it returns (a map of storage keys). However, it could mention the return format or that it performs static analysis.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The description does not reference the parameters or explain how they affect the output.

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 verb 'extract' and the resource 'Lampa.Storage keys', and specifies the output: a complete map with key names, defaults, and file associations. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'find_settings' which focus on settings files rather than the storage persistence model.

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 implies usage for understanding the persistence model but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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