List Volumes

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

Annotations already declare safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds value by specifying exact return fields and statuses, which helps set expectations. No mention of pagination or ordering, but overall transparent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action and result. No redundant words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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, description adequately covers return fields and statuses. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or limits, but acceptable for a simple list tool.

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?

Parameter projectId is fully described in the schema (UUID, required). Description does not add new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it lists persistent volumes in a project and enumerates returned fields (id, name, size, mount_path, status, attached service) and possible statuses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_volume (single volume) or list_projects.

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?

Description provides clear context for listing volumes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_volume for a single volume). No exclusion criteria or alternative hints are given.

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