get_server_volumes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only behavior, authentication needs, error conditions (e.g., server not found), or response structure beyond 'JSON string'. Minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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?

Very concise: two lines of descriptive text plus standardized Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 the output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. The single required parameter is well-explained. However, lacks behavioral details like error handling or rate limits, but for a simple query tool it is largely sufficient.

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?

The schema has no description for instance_name (0% coverage). The description clarifies that the parameter accepts 'Name or ID of the server instance', adding crucial semantic information. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 explicitly states 'Get all volumes attached to a specific server', which is a specific verb-resource pair. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_volume_list (which lists all volumes) and get_instance (which retrieves server details).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context is implied (e.g., needing volumes for a specific server), but no when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided. Sibling tools are not mentioned as alternatives.

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