volume_query

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states the actions (list/inspect) but omits behavioral traits like side effects, read-only nature, authorization needs, or pagination behavior.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the key purpose, though it could be slightly more informative without harm.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify return format, pagination, or the interplay between parameters (e.g., volume required for inspect, filters for list).

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 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description could clarify parameter relationships but doesn't.

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 'List or inspect Docker volumes.' is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly communicates the tool's two main actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like volume_action or compose_query.

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 is provided on when to use volume_query vs alternatives (e.g., volume_action or other query tools). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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