storage_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds context about the types of volumes returned and the semantics of filters, which helps set expectations beyond the schema, but it does not disclose behaviors like pagination or error handling.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a structured Args list that is easy to scan. Every sentence contributes necessary information 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, and example values, making it sufficient for a straightforward read-only listing operation.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the Args section thoroughly explains all three parameters with types, examples, and enumerated allowed values for content. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail and adds significant semantic value.

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 explicitly states the tool lists volumes in a storage and enumerates specific content types (disk images, ISOs, container templates, backup archives), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_storage. The verb and resource are precise and action-oriented.

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 provides clear operational context by requiring a storage ID and offering optional content and vmid filters, making it easy to infer when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of full guidance.

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