browse_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It doesn't disclose whether listing is recursive, how results are returned (e.g., format), or any side effects. For a read-only operation, more context would be helpful.

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 very concise (10 words) and front-loaded with the action. It could add a bit more detail without losing conciseness, but it's not wasteful.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't describe return format, error cases, or whether path supports wildcards. The agent needs more context to use it 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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate, but it doesn't mention parameters at all. Parameter names (name, path, env_id, agent_token) are somewhat self-explanatory but lack detail (e.g., what is env_id used for?).

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 files and directories at a path inside a volume' clearly states the action (list), the resource (files and directories inside a volume), and the path parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_volumes (which lists volumes) and read_volume_file (which reads file contents).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_volume_file for reading content, list_volumes for volumes list). It doesn't mention prerequisites like volume existence or permissions.

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