get_storage_for_purpose

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'find' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about what happens when no default storage exists for a purpose, whether authentication is required, or what the return value looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler words. The phrasing is efficient and the key differentiating word 'default' appears early. It is not over-long, though the brevity does contribute to missing behavioral context.

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?

The tool is low complexity: one required parameter, fully enum-constrained, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description adequately captures the operation, but there are gaps — no return format and no edge-case behavior (e.g., missing default storage) — which matter more because no output schema or annotations exist to fill them.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'purpose' parameter with type, enum values, and a description. The description adds a small amount of meaning by linking the purpose parameter to the concept of a 'default' storage, but it does not clarify each enum value's effect.

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 uses a specific verb ('find'), a resource ('default storage'), and a scope qualifier ('for a specific purpose'), which clearly communicates what the tool does. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_storages (all storages) and get_storage (storage by ID), though it does not explicitly name them.

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 tool versus the closely related siblings get_storage and list_storages. The only usage cue is the description restating the function name's meaning; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.

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