list_storage_paths

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or any side effects, leaving behavioral traits entirely to annotations.

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 short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks essential details and does not front-load critical information, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description.

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 the tool's complexity (pagination, ordering, output schema) and the existence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output, pagination behavior, or how storage paths relate to other entities.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (page, ordering, page_size) with 0% schema description coverage. The description fails to explain any parameter semantics, such as the meaning of ordering or the effect of page_size limits, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'storage paths', making the purpose clear but lacking any differentiation from numerous sibling list_* tools. It does not specify what storage paths are or their scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_documents or list_tags. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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