storage_iscsi_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds only marginal context: it specifies that it retrieves 'status and configured send targets'. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise (about 25 words for the core description, plus a brief args list). Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Given no output schema, the description hints at the output ('status and configured send targets'), which suffices for a simple read tool. Annotations cover safety and side effects well. The only gap is missing usage guidelines, but overall it is fairly 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 input schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions). The description compensates by explaining 'host_name: ESXi host name' and 'target: Optional vCenter/ESXi target name from config', adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's property names.

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 it is a read operation ('[READ] Get iSCSI adapter status and configured send targets.'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform write operations (e.g., storage_iscsi_add_target, storage_iscsi_enable). The verb and resource are specific.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives are mentioned. The context signals show sibling tools for modifying iSCSI, but the description doesn't help the agent decide.

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