List volume services

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining a key failure mode ('forbidden means the role is missing, not that the list is empty') and the absence of paging. Minor tension: 'Not paged' sits awkwardly against a schema that exposes a limit parameter with a 1-100 cap, leaving the agent to guess whether limit truncates or pages.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the resource and return fields front-loaded. The trailing 'Not paged; narrow with filters' is telegraphic enough to be slightly ambiguous rather than maximally efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, authorization pitfalls, error interpretation, and paging behavior; an output schema exists so return-shape detail is unnecessary. The remaining hole is the undocumented host/binary filter semantics and how limit interacts with the no-paging claim.

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 50%: limit and project_id are documented in the schema, while host and binary are bare. The description hints at filtering and implies binary names ('such as cinder-volume'), but never says what values binary accepts or that host is an exact-match filter, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 services such as cinder-volume') plus what is returned (host and state). The 'Cinder/volume' qualifier distinguishes it cleanly from list_compute_services, list_network_agents, and list_services without needing to name them.

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?

Gives real operating context: the call usually requires more than project reader, and 'Not paged; narrow with filters' tells the agent how to get useful result sets. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for the compute/network variants, which keeps it below a 5.

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