System Volumes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does not meet it. It never states that this is a read-only listing, whether authentication/profile selection is required, or how results are bounded; the only behavioral nugget is that configuration volumes are included in the result set.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and zero filler; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse for the disclosure burden it carries, but as structure and economy go it is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all parameters are schema-documented. What remains missing is usage context against the crowded storage/file sibling space; the definition is minimally viable but thin for a tool in this cluster.

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% and all four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) are documented inline in the schema, so the description need add nothing. It contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('列出' / list) and resource ('卷' / volumes) and adds a scope note that configuration volumes are included, which is more than a bare restatement of the name. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many storage_* siblings (storage_overview, storage_pools, storage_space), so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus storage_overview, storage_pools, storage_disks, or the file_* volume-related tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are named; the agent gets only the bare purpose.

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