List Container Mounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries minimal burden. It adds no new behavioral details (e.g., pagination, permissions, default router behavior), which is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates purpose and output details.

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 simple list query with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It specifies returned fields. Minor omission: behavior when routerId is omitted (default router) is in schema, not description, but that's acceptable.

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 100%, so parameters are already described. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (source path, destination path, mount name), which aids in tool selection beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool lists container volume mount definitions and specifies the returned fields (source path, destination path, mount name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like manage_container_mount (which modifies mounts) and list_containers.

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 does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies a read-only query, but lacks mention of alternatives or exclusions. However, the context of sibling tools makes usage inferable.

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