List volume attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: connection details are excluded from the response, a minimum microversion is required, and results are paged. It does not explain what happens when filters like volume_id are omitted, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource identity and the microversion constraint are front-loaded and the pagination note follows. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers the two non-obvious call-level facts (microversion floor, paging) plus a response exclusion. It stops short of explaining the filter parameters, which is the only material omission.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the pagination idiom ("paged with limit and marker"), reinforcing how marker pairs with next_marker, but says nothing about volume_id, project_id, or instance_id semantics — those rely on schema text (and volume_id has none).

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 and resource ("List Cinder attachment records") plus a meaningful scope constraint (API microversion 3.27 or later). The plural 'list' vs. the sibling 'get_volume_attachment' is implied by naming, but the description never explicitly contrasts them or says whether it covers all volumes or one.

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 microversion note tells the agent when the call is valid, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_volumes or get_volume_attachment, nor any prerequisite/auth context. Usage is only implied.

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