Get storage path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-mutating nature is covered. The description adds modest context by saying the response contains 'all fields,' but it does not disclose not-found behavior, error semantics, or authentication requirements. This is acceptable given the simple single-fetch nature but not richly transparent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, selection method, and return scope, earning every word it uses.

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 tool's low complexity, one required parameter, rich safety annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete for correct invocation. It could optionally mention not-found behavior or explicitly name list_storage_paths as the alternative, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by ID' does clarify that the sole parameter identifies which storage path to fetch, which is meaningful. However, for a single integer 'id' parameter, this is only minimal compensation; the description does not explain expected format, source of the ID, or edge cases.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the resource ('storage path'), and clearly specifies cardinality ('a single') and selector ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_storage_paths, which would retrieve multiple storage paths. 'With all fields' also clarifies the expected response scope.

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 clearly implies the tool should be used when the caller has a specific storage path ID and wants that single object. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_storage_paths for listing, so it lacks an explicit exclusion, but the 'single... by ID' phrasing provides adequate contextual guidance for routing.

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