list_mounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with potentially dynamic data. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies this is an 'admin action' requiring elevated permissions, mentions the specific data returned (mount name, source path, target path, read-only status), and explains what mounts are ('allow sharing host directories with server containers').

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states purpose and admin context, second specifies return data, third explains mounts and API key requirement. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 read tool with good annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description provides excellent context about permissions, return data, and mount functionality. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, which it does adequately but not exhaustively (e.g., no pagination or format details).

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, instead focusing on what the tool does and returns. No parameter information is needed or missing.

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') and resource ('all mount points configured on the panel'), specifies it's an admin action, and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on mounts rather than servers, users, eggs, etc. It provides specific details about what information is returned.

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 provides clear context that this is an 'admin action' and 'Requires Application API key,' giving important prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it, though the specificity of 'mount points' helps differentiate from other list tools.

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