list_storage_transfers_to

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful scoping information by specifying that only 'pending' transfers are listed and that they are 'to' the given storage. However, it does not mention permissions, pagination, return shape, or any other operational behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: it conveys the action, the resource, the state ('pending'), and the direction ('to'). This is an appropriately concise definition for a simple tool.

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 tool with one required parameter and a fully described schema, this description is nearly complete. The agent knows exactly what to pass and what kind of result to expect. There is no output schema, so some return-value detail is absent, but for a straightforward listing operation this is not a blocking gap.

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 parameter is already well documented as 'The destination storage UUID'. The description's 'to a storage' mirrors the schema's 'destination' rather than adding substantial new meaning. The description provides adequate context but no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'List pending transfers to a storage'. It clearly identifies the direction of the transfers ('to'), which distinguishes it from sibling list_storage_transfers_from. An agent can immediately understand the operation without opening the schema.

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 when to use the tool: to list pending inbound transfers for a storage. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives, such as list_storage_transfers_from for outbound transfers, or when this tool should not be used. The direction is inferable but not spelled out as usage guidance.

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