storage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cleanup' and 'backup', which suggest side effects, but doesn't disclose whether actions delete files, modify shader cache, require confirmation, or write to a destination. An agent cannot assess the destructiveness or safety of invoking this 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 short and contains no filler, but it is a comma-separated fragment without a verb or sentence structure. It is compact yet not effectively structured to guide an agent's understanding of the tool.

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 tool has 8 actions, 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only a topic list. It does not explain which action to choose, action-specific parameter requirements, or return behavior, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool correctly.

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 description loosely maps to action enum values (cleanup, shader cache, cloud saves, backups), which provides some semantic grouping. However, it says nothing about appid, limit, or sort_by, and with schema description coverage at only 20%, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 is a comma-separated list of topic areas ('Disk usage, cleanup, shader cache, cloud saves, backups') rather than a verb phrase stating an operation. It conveys the storage domain and hints at possible actions but does not clearly say what the tool does, leaving the purpose vague. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools because no specific resource or operation is named.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, no context, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The description only implies that storage-related tasks might belong here, but an agent gets no help deciding between storage and tools like diagnostics or game_control.

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