storage_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the dump-all behavior, the ~20k truncation with a reported flag, and the area default. It doesn't cover error behavior or session_id semantics, but the read-only nature and the most surprising output behavior are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core behavior and pack the important qualifiers (truncation, default area) without wasted words. Every clause earns its place.

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 definition is adequate for basic reads and the output schema covers return shape, but it omits behavior for offset, max_items, timeout, and session_id. For a tool with seven optional parameters, an agent could easily miss dump limits or timeout semantics.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does explain key (single vs dump), area choices/default, and implicitly max_bytes via the truncation note. However, offset, timeout, max_items, and session_id are left undocumented, which is a clear gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('Read localStorage or sessionStorage'), then distinguishes two modes (single key vs dump-all). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and separates it from storage_set without needing to inspect the schema.

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 gives clear context: use it to read browser storage, and choose 'local' or 'session' via area. It doesn't explicitly name storage_set as the alternative for writes, so it stops short of full when-not guidance, but the read-vs-write boundary is obvious.

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