get_volume_info

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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds two pieces of context annotations don't: the failure condition (non-AVolume actors error out) and the conditional nature of bounds fields (only present 'when it has a brush component'). That conditional return behavior is genuinely useful beyond the annotation set.

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?

Single dense sentence plus an explicit return shape, front-loading the read-only intent and class list. The repetition of the flag names in prose and again in the Returns block is slightly redundant but the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 1-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, the brush-conditionality, and the failure mode. It stops just short of routing guidance to siblings, but is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that actor_name is the object name, not the editor label. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Read a volume actor') and resource, then enumerates exactly which classes it recognizes (BlockingVolume, KillZVolume, PainCausingVolume, PostProcessVolume), clearly distinguishing it from sibling getters like get_trigger_info or get_water_body_info.

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?

It gives an important exclusion — 'Fails if the actor is not an AVolume' — which implies when the tool applies, but never names an alternative tool or explicitly states when to prefer it over get_trigger_info/get_actor_properties_by_class. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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