List orphaned platform volumes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds real context beyond that: records persist after cluster deletion, a background janitor retries with backoff, and results are permission-filtered per cluster — the last point is important because it tells an agent an empty list may reflect authorization rather than absence. It stops short of describing result shape or ordering.

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-loaded with the title line then a tight definitional paragraph. Every sentence carries information; the only redundancy is the first line echoing the tool title verbatim, which costs a few tokens without adding meaning.

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 read-only listing with one optional filter and no output schema, the description supplies the essential domain context (what makes a volume orphaned, why records linger, who can see what). It leaves the namespace filter's semantics and any pagination/ordering behavior unexplained, which is the remaining gap.

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 is reported at 0% description coverage, and the description adds nothing about the single optional `namespace` parameter — not what it filters, nor whether omitting it returns all namespaces. That gap matters for a list tool with exactly one knob.

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 orphaned platform volumes) and immediately defines the term of art: volumes whose owning runtime is absent and whose deletion requests to Zerops have failed. That definition is not restated from the name and lets an agent distinguish this from generic storage or cluster listings without opening the schema.

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 qualifying condition for what appears in the list is clear, which implies the diagnostic use case (lingering storage after runtime/cluster disappearance). However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings (e.g. namespaces_list, clusters_list, backup_storages_list) and no statement about when this tool is not the right one.

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