pvc_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The '[READ]' prefix indicates a non-destructive read, but the description does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or rate limits. It is minimally adequate.

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 very concise with no wasted words. The info is front-loaded with the purpose line, followed by a clean Args block. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not specify what fields the returned detail includes. While 'detail' implies the full PVC object, the description should clarify the return format or structure for better completeness.

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%, but the description adds meaningful guidance for all three parameters: name references pvc_list, namespace explains default behavior, and target is described as 'k8s target name from config'. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Return detail for a single PVC by name', using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('single PVC'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool pvc_list which returns a list of PVCs.

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 includes parameter guidance (e.g., 'omit for the target's default namespace' for namespace) and references pvc_list for name. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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