volume_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is for 'viewing persistent storage configurations' and 'auditing storage usage' which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read operation, what permissions are required, or describe pagination/rate limiting. The 'Best for' section adds some behavioral context but doesn't fully cover operational characteristics.

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 well-structured with clear sections (API label, purpose statement, Best for, Prerequisites, Next steps, Related). It's appropriately sized at 6 lines with no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place, though the emoji and formatting symbols could be considered slightly decorative rather than strictly necessary.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, use cases, prerequisites, next steps, and related tools. The main gap is lack of information about return format (what data is included in the volume list) and any limitations (pagination, filtering options). However, given the tool's relative simplicity and the comprehensive usage guidance provided, it's mostly complete.

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% with the single parameter 'projectId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'List all volumes in a project' with a specific verb (list) and resource (volumes). It distinguishes from some siblings like volume_create/delete/update but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like service_list or domain_list. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation could be more specific.

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 provides excellent usage guidance with explicit sections: 'Best for' with three use cases, 'Prerequisites: project_list', 'Next steps: volume_create', and 'Related: service_info, database_deploy'. This gives clear context about when to use this tool and how it fits into workflows with specific alternatives and prerequisites named.

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