list_namespace_storage_usage

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), description adds 'Read-only, no side effects,' 'Returns all PVCs — no pagination,' and explains connection to Supervisor K8s API. No contradiction 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?

Well-structured with [READ] tag, summary, details, usage guidance, and parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose at 6 sentences.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, parameters, behavior, and alternatives. No gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: namespace as 'vSphere Namespace name to inspect' and target with default behavior (omit to use default target).

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?

Clearly states it lists PersistentVolumeClaims and storage usage inside a vSphere Namespace, with a specific verb and resource. The [READ] prefix and details distinguish it from siblings like list_namespaces and list_supervisor_storage_policies.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use alternatives: 'Use list_namespaces to find namespace names; use list_supervisor_storage_policies for policy-level (not PVC-level) information.'

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