block_storage_get_mounting_instructions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does explain that the tool returns step-by-step instructions and commands and that identifier resolution accepts label or ID. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/non-mutating or describe error behavior if the volume is not found.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and organized into clear Args/Returns sections. Minor redundancy exists because 'volume label or ID' is essentially stated twice, but there is no filler or irrelevant content.

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 single-parameter, read-oriented tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation details: what the parameter accepts and what kind of result to expect. It could mention edge cases or prerequisites more explicitly, but the tool is simple enough that nothing critical is missing.

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 schema only declares volume_identifier as a string with zero parameter documentation, so the description must compensate. It does, by specifying that the value can be either a volume label or an ID, which is essential semantic information beyond 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 clearly states the action: retrieve mounting instructions for a block storage volume on Linux. It names a specific resource and platform, and the verb 'Get' makes the operation's nature clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar sibling storage_gateway_get_mount_instructions, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Use volume label or ID' gives concrete guidance on how to supply the identifier, which is useful. However, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over alternatives like storage_gateway_get_mount_instructions, and no exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance.

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