dangling_volumes

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that it reports reclaimable bytes, a useful data point. But it doesn't disclose whether the scan is heavy, whether it requires a running daemon, or how it interacts with the config target.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and core purpose, then args. The single arg explanation is efficient, though the '[READ]' tag partly duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the key output metric, and the sole parameter's semantics. Missing only an explicit pointer to prune_volumes as the follow-up action.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema does not document the single target parameter at all. The description does explain that target is a 'Target name from config' and that omitting it yields the default, which compensates partially for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific resource (dangling/unreferenced volumes) with the added metric (reclaimable bytes) and scope (prune candidates). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_volumes and prune_volumes by emphasizing 'unreferenced' and 'candidates'.

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 phrase 'prune candidates' implies this is the discovery step before prune_volumes, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name prune_volumes as the alternative or state when-not-to-use.

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