list_volumes

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

The description implies a read-only, non-destructive operation by stating 'list'. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it sufficiently conveys that no side effects occur, though it could be more explicit.

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 concise with two sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and the nature of the resource, which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by explaining what a volume is, which helps the agent understand the context of the returned data. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'memory volumes', and provides explanatory context ('Each volume is an independent memory space'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_memory by focusing on volumes.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: to list all memory volumes accessible by the API key. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for a simple listing tool.

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