tenki_get_volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds 'metadata and current state' but that is essentially the purpose, not additional behavioral context. It is consistent with the annotations and does not contradict them, but it does not disclose anything beyond what the annotations already provide (e.g., no rate limits, auth requirements, or side effects).

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 a single, efficient sentence with the key action ('Fetch') front-loaded and no redundant information. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple get operation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the annotations cover safety, and the schema covers the parameter, the description is sufficient. It states the resource ('volume') and the targeted aspect ('metadata and current state'), which is a reasonable specification for a read-only fetch. There is no output schema to clarify return format, but that is not necessary here. It lacks explicit mention of possible error scenarios or volume states, but these are not essential for a basic fetch operation.

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 description coverage is 100%; the parameter volume_id is already described with an example ('vol_…'). The description's phrase 'by its id' aligns with the schema but does not add new meaning. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate with extra details like format validation or related constraints.

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 precisely states a verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('a single volume's metadata and current state'), and the required identifier ('by its id'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tenki_list_volumes (plural vs. singular) and other volume mutation tools like tenki_delete_volume or tenki_resize_volume, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 usage (when you need a single volume's details), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like tenki_list_volumes or when not to use it (e.g., if you need to modify the volume). No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so it relies on the agent's inference from the tool name and sibling list.

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