Get volume details

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true) but adds no extra behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide. No mention of permissions, rate limits, 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 sentence of 7 words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word is essential; no unnecessary text.

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 number of volume-related siblings and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not specify what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., driver, size, mount point), leaving the agent with incomplete expectations. However, for a simple get tool, it is minimally viable.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. It is adequate but does not enrich the parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'Docker volume', matching the name and title. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like arcane_volume_list (list volumes) and arcane_volume_browse (browse contents) by specifying 'detailed information'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like arcane_volume_get_counts or arcane_volume_browse.

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