Get account storage usage (Sync quota)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does exceptionally well: it reveals the scraping mechanism, the fragility, the failure behavior ('fails with a clear tool error... rather than a crash or a guessed value'), the raw string return format with unit suffixes, and the unconfirmed semantic scope. This is far more transparent than typical tool descriptions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct and decision-relevant caveat: the scraping mechanism and fragility, the raw string format, and the quota-naming ambiguity. There is no redundancy or filler; all content earns its place.

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-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, how the data is obtained, reliability risks, failure mode, data representation, and semantic ambiguity. The only minor omission is an example response, but the raw string examples ('0.00 KB', '5000.00 GB') already convey the format.

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 input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Rule baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not attempt to explain nonexistent parameters, which 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?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the account's used and total Sync storage quota.' It also clarifies the exact naming scope ('Sync' quota, not total backup usage), which distinguishes this tool from sibling account-level tools like get_account_features and get_dashboard. The title reinforces the purpose with 'Get account storage usage (Sync quota).'

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 does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but it provides strong contextual guidance: it explains that there is no dedicated JSON endpoint, so this tool scrapes the data from a page and is inherently fragile. This gives clear context for when an agent should rely on it and the associated risk. No explicit exclusions are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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