List shards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context about erasure-coded shards and the experimental nature of the feature, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, response format, or pagination details.

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 focused sentence followed by a documentation link. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids any filler or repetition.

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 0-parameter list operation, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource, scope, and experimental status, and links to docs. It does not describe the return shape, but the list operation and provided documentation mitigate this.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter commentary.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List erasure-coded shards backing V2 data engine sharded volumes'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like shard_get and shardgroup_list by scope and object type, and flags the feature as experimental.

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?

Usage context is implied through the phrase 'backing V2 data engine sharded volumes', and the tool name contrasts with shard_get/shardgroup_list. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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