inspect_volume

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

The [READ] marker and readOnlyHint annotation together make the safety profile unambiguous, and the description goes beyond the annotation by disclosing what information is retrieved (driver, mountpoint, options, usage). It does not mention error behavior for a missing volume, which is the main gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its scope, then a compact Args block. The bracketed [READ] tag is slightly redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, but overall there is little waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the returned fields, and both parameters are explained. Complete enough to call correctly; only missing guidance on error cases and whether the volume must exist.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — and it does, documenting both params: name as the volume name and target as a config target that defaults to the default when omitted. That resolves the anyOf/null default ambiguity the schema leaves unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Inspect one named volume") and even enumerates the returned facets (driver, mountpoint, options, usage). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_volumes/dangling_volumes by scoping to a single named volume, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "one named volume" — the agent can infer this is the detail view for a volume it already knows by name, versus list_volumes for discovery. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or failure conditions (e.g., volume not found) are provided.

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