Get storage settings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real value on top: the meaning of each returned field, the null semantics (null disables auto-expiration; null ACL means system default public; both null when never saved), and an explicit required permission. It stops short of describing pagination or response shape, but there is little else to disclose for a simple read.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a compact bullet list per returned field, then an auth line. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting is slightly heavier than a single-field read strictly requires.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by documenting the returned fields and their null semantics. Auth is stated, and the parameter is covered by the schema. Nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single `account` parameter is well documented in the schema as a private account key profile label. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so 3 is the appropriate baseline when the schema carries the semantics.

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: returns account-level storage lifecycle settings for newly uploaded fal CDN files, and enumerates the two returned fields. It is clearly a read operation, distinguishing it implicitly from update_storage_settings, but it never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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 explains what the tool returns and the auth it needs, but gives no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as update_storage_settings (to change settings) or get_storage_file_acl (for per-file ACLs). The agent must infer the appropriate context.

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