Get space usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the operation is known to be safe. The description adds only the scope ('for the account') and the fact that it returns both usage and allocation, but does not disclose any additional behavioral nuances (e.g., rate limits, quota details, or potential variability in returned fields). Since annotations cover the main safety trait, a 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence that contains no unnecessary words. It leads with the verb 'Return' and immediately states the resource and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, parameterless read-only tool, the description is nearly complete. It names the return content (storage usage and allocation) and the scope (account). It does not explicitly enumerate the fields of the response (no output schema exists), but the high-level description suffices for an agent to understand what the tool provides. A 4 reflects that slight lack of detail while recognizing the tool's simplicity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description has no parameter-level burden. The schema is empty and fully documented by that fact, and the description correctly focuses on the return value rather than inputs. Baseline 4 for a parameterless tool holds.

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 verb ('Return') and a well-defined resource ('storage usage and allocation') scoped to 'the account'. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like dropbox_get_current_account, which returns account identity details rather than quota/space information.

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 implies usage when an agent needs account storage/quota information, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. There are no direct exclusions or alternative routing, though the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would not confuse it with other file/account operations.

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