block_storage_list_unattached

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation (list) and the return value (list of unattached volumes), but does not mention pagination, scope (e.g., region), or any side-effect profile. For a simple read-only list, 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a return type. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter list operation, the description covers the essential return shapelocked on completeness. It does not explicitly mention pagination or the geographic scope of 'all,' which could matter in a multi-region block storage API, but the output schema and simplicity reduce that gap.

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)Skip baseline is 4 for no parameters. The description adds no parameter information, but there are no parameters to document.

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 all unattached block storage volumes.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling block_storage_list_attached by the 'unattached' qualifier, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schema.

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 usage for unattached volumes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus block_storage_list_attached or block_storage_list_by_region. The distinction is inferable from the name and context, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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