storage_domain_get

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden, and it does lead with '[READ]', signaling a non-mutating operation. It also adds the data-center-scoped status nuance, but it does not describe return format, failure behavior, authentication needs, or other side effects. This is adequate but minimal for an unannotated tool.

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 compact, starts with the purpose, and uses a tightly formatted Args block. Every sentence is necessary and no redundant phrasing is present.

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 single-record fetch tool with two parameters and no output schema, this description is essentially complete. The only minor gap is absence of any statement about what fields are returned or error conditions, but the low complexity and read-only nature make this acceptable.

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 schema provides 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does explain both parameters. 'domain_id' is clarified as a storage domain id and cross-referenced to storage_domain_list; 'target' is explained as an Engine target name from config, with the default behavior noted. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 ('get'), the resource ('storage domain'), the selector ('by id'), and a specific qualifier ('data-center-scoped status'). This differentiates it from the sibling storage_domain_list, which lists many domains, and the 'One storage domain by id' phrasing makes the selection criterion explicit.

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 usage context is clear: you fetch a single storage domain by id, and you can obtain an id via storage_domain_list. However, it never explicitly contrasts when to use this vs alternatives or states exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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