volume_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that this is a read operation via [READ], describes filtering behavior (min_percent) and result ordering (worst first). It does not describe the return shape or authentication/config dependencies, but these are minor for a simple read-only status 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 compact and front-loaded with the [READ] label. The Args section is organized and every line contributes useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional parameters, the description covers source data, threshold semantics, ordering, and target selection. A brief hint about the response format would make it fully complete, especially since no output schema is provided, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, yet the description fully documents both parameters: min_percent is explained with unit and meaning, including default 0 = all; target is explained as a SolarWinds target name from config, with the omission behavior stated. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 states a specific resource (Orion.Volumes), the condition ('at/above a fill threshold'), and ordering ('worst first'). The [READ] label establishes the operation type, clearly distinguishing it from other status tools targeting nodes, interfaces, or applications.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need volume capacity/fill status, especially worst offenders. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like node_status, interface_status, or application_status, or state when not to use it.

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