prune_volumes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses high risk, no undo, and the dry_run preview behavior, which is good for a destructive tool, though it lacks details on permissions or error handling.

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 very concise: a headline with key warnings and a short Args section. Every sentence is valuable, front-loading the most critical information (write, risk, no undo).

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 description covers the main usage and dry_run behavior, and with only two optional parameters, it is largely complete. However, it omits return format for the non-dry-run case and potential side effects.

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 description compensates by explaining dry_run lists what would be removed and reclaimable bytes, and target is a config name. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type/default values.

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 prunes unreferenced (dangling) volumes, with a [WRITE][risk=high] tag and 'No undo.' This specific verb-resource combo distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_volumes or dangling_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 usage for removing dangling volumes and mentions dry_run for preview, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_volumes or dangling_volumes, nor does it provide when-not to use guidance.

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