storage_config_get

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return content (current provider, bucket, region, connection status) which gives the agent a sense of what the operation reveals. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is read-only safety-wise, whether it requires admin permissions, or what failure modes exist (e.g., no config set). The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core action and return fields; the second adds contextual value by explaining the feature purpose. Front-loaded with the primary action. Perfectly concise.

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 GET config tool, the description is largely sufficient. It states what's returned and the feature's purpose. Minor gaps: no mention of what happens when storage config is not set (empty response vs error), and no indication of whether this requires any special permissions. But given the simplicity of the operation, these are minor concerns.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters and schema already covers 100%. There's no parameter information needed since there are no params to document. The description's mention of what fields are returned (provider, bucket, region, status) is the relevant semantic content here, and it provides that. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'external storage configuration'. It enumerates the exact return fields (provider, bucket, region, connection status) and explains the feature's purpose (storing PDFs/XMLs in S3-compatible bucket). Differentiates well from sibling tools like storage_config_update, storage_config_test, and storage_config_delete.

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-to-use guidance or alternatives mentioned. While it's a straightforward GET config operation, the description doesn't state when to prefer this over storage_config_test (which presumably tests connectivity) or how it relates to storage_config_providers. The return of 'connection status' blurs the line with a test operation. No exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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