verify_storage

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it creates a test bucket, uploads/downloads an object, and compares. It also reveals a practical requirement for fullaccess credentials and explains endpoint auto-detection with remote host support. However, it doesn't disclose whether the test bucket is cleaned up after the test, which is a notable omission for a tool with side effects.

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 compact, with no redundant sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then adds credential and endpoint details in a logical order. Every clause contributes useful information.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, credentials, and endpoint behavior but omits cleanup behavior and failure semantics. Given the tool creates a test bucket, the lack of cleanup information leaves an important gap. Overall, it's adequate but not fully complete for a side-effectful verification 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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds critical context: endpoint default and override conditions, and the exact credential type ('fullaccess' from Relayer UI IAM, not read-only/bucket-scoped). This enriches the schema meaning and helps agents pick appropriate values.

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 tool's function: 'Verify the S3-compatible storage gateway is working by performing a round-trip test...' It specifies the verb, resource, and method, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_relayer_health.

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?

It provides clear context: use this when you need to verify the storage gateway, not just service health. It also specifies when to override the endpoint ('when auto-detection cannot reach the host') and explicitly states the required credential type. However, it doesn't name alternative tools for different checks, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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