List mounts

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior and open-world semantics. The description adds resource scope but no additional behavioral details such as pagination or result shape; no contradiction exists.

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?

Single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and object while embedding the relevant attachment targets.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description plus fully annotated parameters is sufficient to call correctly. The open-world annotation and parameter descriptions cover the remaining context.

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 descriptions fully cover all four optional parameters (page, detail, search, per_page) with defaults and constraints. The description contributes domain context but does not need to repeat parameter behavior.

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 and resource: 'List host-path mounts' and clarifies scope with 'that can be attached to eggs, nodes and servers.' This distinguishes it from other list tools in the sibling set.

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?

Description gives clear context for when to use: retrieving available host-path mounts for attachment to eggs, nodes, or servers. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool directly overlaps this purpose.

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