volume_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details' without specifying what details are returned, whether the operation is read-only, or how errors are handled. Minimal behavioral context.

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 one concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states the action, but does not elaborate on what 'details' includes. Given the low complexity, it is sufficient, though slightly more context could enhance usability.

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 describes volume_id with 100% coverage ('Volume identifier'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but none is needed for this simple parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific volume'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like volume_list, which would list volumes. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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 implies use when a single volume's details are needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. While the context is fairly clear, it lacks explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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