list_volumes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action without any detail on return format, pagination, error handling, or permissions. For a list operation, agents would benefit from knowing the response shape or any failure modes.

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, direct sentence that gets to the point immediately. There is no filler or redundant 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the response contents (e.g., a list of volume objects). It also does not connect to the sibling list_environments for obtaining the required ID. Despite the low complexity, the description is under-specified for complete context.

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 sole parameter environmentId is fully described in the schema with 'Portainer environment ID' (100% coverage). The description does not add extra semantics beyond that, but none are needed given the schema clarity.

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), the resource (Docker volumes), and the scope (in an environment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_containers and list_networks by specifying the exact resource type.

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 the tool is used to retrieve volumes for a given environment, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites such as obtaining the environment ID from list_environments. This is a minimal but not misleading level of guidance.

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