List volumes

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), so the bar is lower. The description adds what a volume record contains, but that is output content rather than behavioral disclosure; it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or scoping constraints beyond annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the usage trigger before the field enumeration. Every clause earns its place, though the trailing field list slightly bloats an otherwise tight line.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers both the trigger and the shape of the returned records (name, id, sizeGb, status, region, lastUsedBytes, attachedSandboxId). That is enough for an agent to call and consume it correctly, though response ordering/pagination is undocumented.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% ('Project name, slug, or ID'). The description merely references 'a Lizard project' without adding format or resolution detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('see the persistent sandbox volumes') and resource, with clear scope ('in a Lizard project'). It also enumerates the fields returned, so an agent immediately knows what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling volume_resize, but list-vs-resize is unambiguous.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the user wants to see the persistent sandbox volumes.' That gives clear context for selection. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. pointing to volume_resize for mutation), so it stops short of a 5.

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