oci_bv_list_boot_volumes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation but does not state pagination behavior, permission requirements, or what is returned. There is no mention of any side effects, so it is not misleading, but it lacks useful behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 sentence of seven words, which is extremely concise and front-loaded. It communicates the core action and scope without any filler or redundancy. This is an appropriate size for a simple list operation.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain return values, pagination via the limit parameter, or how this tool relates to siblings like oci_bv_list_volumes. The tool has three optional parameters, but the description does not clarify how they interact or whether any are required in practice. More context would be needed for an agent to invoke it effectively.

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 100%, so all three parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'availability domain' in the description simply mirrors the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'List boot volumes in an availability domain' with a specific verb and resource. It mentions the scope (availability domain), which distinguishes it from a general volume listing, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool oci_bv_list_volumes. The name itself clarifies boot vs block volumes, so the purpose is clear though not fully distinguished from siblings.

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. It does not mention that oci_bv_list_volumes should be used for block volumes, nor does it explain any prerequisites or intended use cases. The only clue is the mention of availability domain, but that is more of a parameter than usage guidance.

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