volume_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the unreadableVolumes return bucket and explains that percentUsed: null means unmeasured rather than empty, plus the worst-first ordering — a semantic distinction an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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-loads the [READ] marker and the core purpose, then adds the return-semantics caveat, then a compact Args block. The Args entries restate schema defaults, but with 0% schema coverage that repetition is doing useful work rather than wasting space.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value disclosure and covers the notable edge case (unreadable volumes) as well as both parameters. Nothing critical for a correct invocation appears missing, though pagination or result-size behavior is not mentioned.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: min_percent is defined as the minimum percent-used cutoff with default 0 meaning all, and target is defined as a SolarWinds target name from config that can be omitted for the default. Both parameters are fully explained.

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 verb+resource (list volumes), the data source (Orion.Volumes), the filter scope (at/above a fill threshold) and the ordering (worst first). Among siblings like interface_status, node_status and application_status, the resource name makes it unambiguous which domain this covers.

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?

Usage is implied by the threshold framing — you call it to find volumes near capacity — but the description never states when to prefer it over siblings such as topn or noc_rollup, nor any prerequisite. The min_percent=0 default hints at the unfiltered case but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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