volume_inspect

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return payload structure (Name, Driver, Mountpoint, CreatedAt, Labels, Options, Scope) and the lack of IDs. It doesn't cover error behavior, but for a simple read-only inspect tool, the additional context is sufficient.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, a usage note, and properly labeled sections for arguments and return values. Every sentence adds value: the usage note provides context, and the args/returns section succinctly documents the API. It is concise without being terse.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists the expected return keys, which fully informs the agent about the result structure. It also includes usage context for the volume lifecycle. For a single-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, this description is complete and self-sufficient.

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 has zero description coverage (the parameter 'name' is just a string with no explanation). The description compensates fully by including 'args: name - The volume name (volumes have no ids)', which not only clarifies the parameter's purpose but also explains why there is no id. This is a complete semantic addition for the single 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a volume's full inspect payload by name.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from volume_list (which lists volumes) and other inspect tools (which inspect different resource types). The additional context about addressing volumes by name without ids further clarifies the scope.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use it after volume_list' and provides concrete examples such as 'before a backup or volume_remove.' It also clarifies the addressing scheme ('volumes have no separate id'), which helps the agent understand prerequisites and avoid common mistakes. This is explicit usage guidance with context.

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