tenki_attach_volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the mount path and read_only behavior, but does not disclose what happens if the volume is already attached elsewhere, whether the mount path must be empty, or if the operation can override existing mounts. These details would be valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the read_only option is presented succinctly. Every word earns its place.

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 mount operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites (running sandbox, absolute path) and the read_only option. It omits edge-case behavior but remains sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% with descriptions for every parameter. The tool description adds meaning by stating the mount path must be absolute and that read_only controls write access, which complements the schema's generic descriptions. This exceeds the baseline for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mount') and identifies the resource (volume) and target (running sandbox) with an absolute path, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like tenki_detach_volume and tenki_create_volume. The intent is unmistakable.

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 clearly states the action (mount a volume into a running sandbox) and the key option (read_only). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to call this tool versus its siblings.

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