list_available_os_for_volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no repetition is needed. The description adds the volume-scoped/install-relevant constraint but does not disclose behaviors such as response shape or handling of invalid volumes; given the strong annotation coverage this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single sentence, front-loads the primary action, and contains no filler.

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, single-parameter list operation, the description gives enough context: what is listed, for which resource, and how the result connects to install_os_on_volume. It does not describe output details, but no output schema exists and the required info is otherwise minimal.

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?

There is one parameter, volume_id, with no schema description (0% coverage). The phrase 'onto this volume' ties volume_id to its role as the target volume, and 'via install_os_on_volume' explains why the list is relevant, but the description does not explicitly define the parameter or its expected format/constraints.

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 identifies a specific verb (List), a clear resource (operating systems for a given volume), and names the downstream operation install_os_on_volume, which distinguishes it from similar siblings such as list_vps_available_os and list_os_images. It is not a tautology and the resource scope is unmistakable.

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?

It establishes clear context: this is the enumeration to consult before calling install_os_on_volume for a volume. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like list_vps_available_os, so it falls 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.