volume_inspect

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: volumes are addressed purely by name with no separate id, and the return payload includes fields like Mountpoint, Driver, and Labels, which helps an agent understand what the tool reveals.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then gives workflow context and compact Args/Returns details. The 'volumes have no ids' point appears twice, which is mildly redundant, but the overall length is appropriate and every section contributes useful information.

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 single-parameter, read-only inspect tool, the description covers when to use it, how the volume is addressed, and what the return payload contains. Since there is no output schema, listing the expected keys is especially valuable, and nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema only defines name as a required string. The description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explaining that volumes have no ids and are addressed purely by name, which is meaningful semantic detail. It repeats this point in both the prose and the Args section, but the clarification is valuable.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a volume's full inspect payload by name.' It clearly differentiates from volume_list by emphasizing a full inspect payload, and the workflow hint reinforces this distinction.

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 explicitly recommends using it after volume_list and before operations like backup or volume_remove, giving clear context. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the workflow guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand its role among siblings.

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