get_storage_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It only states what is shown (usage and plan) but does not disclose if it makes network requests, caching behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation-free read tool.

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 very short and front-loaded, stating the purpose immediately. However, the inclusion of '[query]' is unclear and may be a leftover tag, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no-parameter status tool, the description adequately covers its function. It explains what it shows (usage and active plan), but lacks details on output format or potential variations. Given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 has zero parameters (schema is empty object), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 applies as no additional meaning is required.

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 clearly states the purpose: viewing storage status showing current usage and active plan. The verb 'Muestra' specifies the action, and the resource 'almacenamiento' is distinct from sibling tools which focus on other areas like credits, API usage, or general usage stats.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_usage_stats or get_credits_info. The description does not provide context for exclusion or comparison with siblings.

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