get_volume_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real operational prerequisite (API microversion >= 3.13), which is valuable context an agent cannot get from the schema. It says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or empty-list behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the one hidden requirement (microversion). A brief note on whether an empty result is possible or how results are ordered would make it fully 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the microversion note is a bonus constraint rather than parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus a specific resource ("Cinder generic groups") plus an explicit scope ("current-project"). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_volume_list, get_volume_types, and get_volume_backups, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly to reinforce the distinction.

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 never states when to reach for this tool versus get_volume_list or get_volume_types, nor does it mention any exclusions. The "current-project" phrase hints at a scoping constraint, but that is inference rather than guidance.

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