portainer_volumes_list

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 only states the action ('List Docker volumes') without disclosing behavioral traits like safety (read-only), side effects, prerequisites (endpoint existence), or response structure. Minimal transparency.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with a structured Args block. Every word is purposeful. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool's low complexity (1 optional param, present output schema), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details on listing behavior (e.g., returns all volumes, any pagination) and does not mention prerequisites like endpoint existence. Adequate but with gaps.

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 description explains the single parameter endpoint_id as 'Target endpoint ID (uses default if omitted)', which adds meaning beyond the schema (which only has title 'Endpoint Id'). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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?

Clearly states it lists Docker volumes on an endpoint. The verb 'List' and resource 'volumes' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling volume tools (create, inspect, remove) but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools in the sibling set.

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 versus alternatives like portainer_volume_inspect or portainer_volumes_list is implied to be for listing all volumes, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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