List Volumes

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

The description simply states 'list' which aligns with the readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations, but it discloses no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, result format, potential errors). Since annotations already cover the read-only nature, the description adds minimal value.

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, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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 operation, the description is minimal and lacks context about the output format, filter behavior, or how the parameters affect the result. An agent would need additional information to know what 'volumes' includes and how to interpret the response.

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?

The schema lists four parameters (env, region, appSlug, workspaceSlug) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of them. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by clarifying what each parameter means or which are required for the operation.

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 'List volumes for an app instance' clearly states a specific verb (list) and resource (volumes), with a context ('app instance') that distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'listWorkspaceVolumes'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with that sibling, so the differentiation relies on the inferred meaning of 'app instance'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'listWorkspaceVolumes'. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where one should be preferred over the other.

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