get_storage_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full burden. It uses '查看' (view) and '获取' (get), implying a read-only operation with no side effects, and it discloses the return format (JSON with local/remote status and pull configuration). However, it does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or any rate limits.

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?

Description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a returns note without 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 status tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys scope and result content. It lacks contextual guidance on when to prefer it over siblings, but that is covered under usage guidelines; overall it's adequate for its low complexity.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the description cannot add parameter detail; the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description's mention of return content partially clarifies what the user can expect, but no parameter semantics are needed.

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 tool retrieves storage configuration and status ('获取存储配置和状态'), specifying storage backend, local/remote storage status, and pull configuration. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_system_status or get_rss_feeds_status by focusing on storage resources.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance is provided. The use case is implied by the description: call when needing storage status information, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned relative to sibling tools.

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