list_attachable_vps_for_volume

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

Annotations already signal readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it scopes to 'this account's' VPS instances and discloses the eligibility filters (same region, stopped where required). The phrase 'stopped where required' is slightly vague but still conveys nontrivial filtering 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes meaning: scope, eligibility, region, and required state.

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 read-only single-parameter list tool, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: purpose, scope, and eligibility criteria. The main gap is the ambiguous 'stopped where required,' and with no output schema, return-value shape is not described but is inferable as a list of VPS instances.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining volume_id. It only refers to 'this volume' indirectly; it does not clarify the expected format, how to obtain a volume_id, or the relationship to the volume resource beyond the parameter name. Minimal value added over the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('VPS instances eligible to attach this volume to'), and states the key constraints (same region, stopped where required). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_attachable_vps_for_ip and other list operations.

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 makes clear the intended context: discovering which VPS instances can be attached to a given volume. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can select it correctly without inferring much.

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