object_storage_get_storage_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes clear this is a read-only aggregation and lists the exact summary fields returned. It does not disclose potential caveats like data freshness, empty-region behavior, or permission requirements, but for a zero-parameter read summary the core behavior is sufficiently visible.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then uses a clean bulleted list to enumerate the return fields. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter summary operation with an output schema available, the description is complete: it states the scope ('all instances') and the four summary categories. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms no properties exist. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('all Object Storage instances'), and the aggregate nature ('summary'), so an agent can distinguish it from single-instance tools like object_storage_get. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the scope and summary emphasis make the purpose unambiguous.

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: when an aggregate overview of all Object Storage instances is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like object_storage_get for per-instance details, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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