list_vps_disks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'currently attached' qualifier, indicating it returns the live state of attachments, but it does not disclose response format, ordering, or pagination behavior. With the annotation scaffolding, this is adequate 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and scope with no superfluous words. It is highly efficient and immediately understandable.

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 tool with one required parameter and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the tool's straightforward nature, though a note on return fields would make it complete.

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 must compensate for the sole parameter vps_id. It implicitly clarifies that 'this VPS' refers to the VPS identified by vps_id, giving the parameter contextual meaning beyond the raw schema property title. However, it does not explain the expected format or constraints of the identifier, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a clear resource ('the disks currently attached to this VPS'), which precisely identifies the operation and scope. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling list_volumes, but the VPS-specific qualifier provides enough context to distinguish it from general volume listing.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs to see disks attached to a specific VPS, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer it over list_volumes or when not to use it. There are no alternatives or exclusions mentioned, so the usage context is left to inference.

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