dangling_volumes

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explicitly marks the operation as READ (non-destructive) and describes the output as dangling volumes and reclaimable bytes. This adequately discloses behavioral traits for a read operation.

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 concise, with a header line stating the purpose and an Args section for the parameter. It is front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only operation), the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists and the parameter usage. No output schema exists, but the return values (dangling volumes and bytes) are implied.

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 only provides type information for the single parameter 'target'. The description adds meaningful context: 'Target name from config; omit for the default.' This explains the parameter's purpose and default behavior, significantly enhancing semantic understanding beyond the schema.

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 lists dangling volumes and their reclaimable bytes, and identifies them as prune candidates. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('dangling volumes'), and the context of 'prune candidates' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_volumes' and 'prune_volumes'.

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 implies the tool is for finding candidate volumes to prune, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'prune_volumes' or 'list_volumes'. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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