list_volume_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists volume groups and shows attributes, but does not explicitly disclose that it is read-only, whether any permissions are required, or potential side effects. The description is functional but lacks essential behavioral transparency for an agent.

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, well-structured sentence (about 20 words) that immediately conveys the tool's action and output. Every word is necessary; no fluff or redundancy. It is model-grade concise.

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 simplicity (list with one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return fields and purpose. It lacks mention of error conditions or pagination, but for a straightforward list operation, it is sufficiently complete. The output fields are explicitly listed, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'server' parameter, which already explains its purpose and default behavior. The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states the action ('List all LVM volume groups') and the specific attributes returned ('name, total size, free space, physical volume count, and logical volume count'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'list_disks' and 'list_logical_volumes' by specifying 'volume groups' and the exact fields.

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 implies usage for listing volume groups but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_logical_volumes' for logical volumes) or any exclusions. It lacks explicit context or prerequisites, resulting in minimal usage direction.

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