arcane_get_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get details', which implies a read operation, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, possible errors, or return structure. This is minimal and leaves much unspecified.

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 concise sentence, easy to parse and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It avoids redundancy, though it is slightly under-specified for a production tool, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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 getter with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but does not elaborate on what 'details' are returned or any nuances such as permissions or error conditions. The schema covers the input side, but the output side is left entirely to the agent's assumptions.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (volumeName and environmentId). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: 'Get details of a specific volume', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from list_volumes by indicating 'specific volume', though it does not explicitly differentiate from other volume-related getters like browse_volume or get_volume_file.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply restates the function without mentioning prerequisites, suitable contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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