Get storage pool info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only; never modifies NAS state' is consistent and helpful. It goes further by disclosing that it returns normalized per-pool numbers rather than raw diagnostics, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured 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 compact and front-loaded with the core capability, followed by usage guidance and sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it states what is returned (a list of {name, total_tb, free_tb} objects), when to use it, and how it differs from related siblings. Nothing needed to invoke it 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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. The description correctly implies an unqualified list operation, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List every storage pool on the ZSpace NAS with its name and capacity.' It clearly distinguishes itself from zspace_disk_stats and zspace_check, so an agent can tell which tool answers a capacity question without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('inspect free space before an upload or to report total capacity'), and when to prefer alternatives ('Prefer this over zspace_disk_stats... Use zspace_check instead if you need to know whether the NAS is reachable at all'). This is strong routing guidance.

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