list_mounts

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. The verb 'List' signals a non-destructive read operation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose what the response contains, whether empty results are possible, or any service state requirements, leaving some behavior unexplained.

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 a single succinct sentence that states the action and target without redundant detail, filler, or repetition of schema information. It is concise and effectively structured.

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?

The tool is simple and both required parameters are well documented in the schema, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify what the listing returns (e.g., mount paths, mount names, or empty behavior). This leaves a minor gap for an agent that needs to interpret the result after invocation.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('Project name' and 'Service name'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond indicating the service context, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('volume mounts for a service'), so an agent understands what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as create_mount or list_ports, which prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_mount or inspect tools. The only implicit context is that it operates on a service, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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