get_record_storages

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 implies a read-only listing operation, but does not explicitly state that it is safe, nor does it describe any filtering behavior, pagination, or side effects. It gives the basic type of action (listing storages) but nothing about how the tool behaves beyond its name.

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 a single concise phrase with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it efficiently scannable for an agent.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not state what fields each record storage contains, any default behavior (e.g., returns all storages), or the structure of the result. Since the output schema is missing, a bit more detail about the returned items would improve the agent's ability to use the result correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, since the only parameter has a description: 'Фильтер по имени хранилища записей' (filter by record storage name). The tool description does not add any extra meaning to this parameter beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema covers the parameter fully and the description merely in a similar way.

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 states a clear, specific resource: 'Список хранилищ записей разговоров' (list of call recording storages), which names both the resource (storages) and the operation (list/get). It is distinct from siblings like get_recordings or get_call_history, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. This makes the purpose clear, but it is more of a noun phrase than an explicit action statement.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs get_recordings, get_call_history, or other siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or related alternatives. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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