get_volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on error behavior for unknown IDs, whether the result includes attached servers, or freshness/caching of the data.

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?

A single six-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 single-parameter read with annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. It is not complete enough to tell an agent what a volume contains or how to handle a missing ID, which matters given the sibling set of create/attach/delete operations.

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 0% for the single required `id` parameter, so the schema gives only `type: number`. The phrase "by ID" does confirm the parameter is the volume identifier rather than, say, a server ID, but it provides no format, range, or source guidance for obtaining that ID.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a single volume") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), which clearly separates it from mutating siblings like create_volume, delete_volume, attach_volume, and detach_volume. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the resource-level distinction is 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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing states that this is for retrieving an existing volume's details, nor that creation/attachment/deletion belong to other tools. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name alone.

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