move_get_volume

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and open-world; the description adds useful domain context about volume lifecycle and the FINISHED state requirement. There is no contradiction between the description and the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, with the core fetch action first and the state prerequisite second. Every word earns its place, and the description is short enough for an agent to ingest quickly.

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 read operation with an output schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the returned state, and the business prerequisite. It could add an explicit note about expand behavior or error cases, but those are secondary given the schema and annotations.

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 description does not explain the expand parameter, but the schema already documents it with an enum and default. 'Fetch a calibration volume' maps naturally to the required volume_id and adds the 'calibration' semantic, partially compensating for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with the specific action 'Fetch a calibration volume and its processing state,' clearly identifying the resource and what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_volumes tool, so it misses the top score but remains unambiguous.

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 second sentence gives concrete context: a volume must be FINISHED before it can back a multicam take, implying this tool is used to check that readiness. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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