arvan_get_volume_limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety is clear. The description adds that it operates per region but does not elaborate on behavior such as whether all regions are queried if region is null, or if any permissions are needed.

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 sentence of 9 words, front-loading the action and resource. No extraneous content.

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 has low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema) but the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a number or detailed list). It also doesn't clarify whether region is required or defaults to all regions, leaving ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter description. The description only mentions 'region' in the overall purpose, but does not explain the parameter's meaning, allowed values, or default behavior. For a single optional parameter, more detail is needed.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'block-storage volume limits/quota', with scope 'for a region'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'arvan_list_volumes' (lists volumes) and 'arvan_get_volume' (gets a specific volume).

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'arvan_get_quotas' (which also gets quotas) or 'arvan_list_volumes'. The description does not specify when to provide a region, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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