get_volume_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses only a partial field list. It does not state that this is a read-only inspection, what happens when the node has no volumes, how max_volumes truncates the result, or how bins/threshold alter the reported statistics.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with no filler, but it is a verbless fragment rather than a well-formed statement, and its terseness comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient editing.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it neither explains the inputs nor confirms the return shape, and it omits what a caller needs to interpret binned or thresholded statistics.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Neither node_path, bins, threshold, nor max_volumes is explained; at best 'per-volume' faintly hints at multi-volume enumeration governed by max_volumes, but bins and threshold — the two parameters that materially change the reported mean/sum/range — are left opaque.

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 is a noun-phrase fragment ('Per-volume name, resolution, active voxels, value range, mean and sum') that enumerates fields but never states an action or object, so the verb must be inferred from the name get_volume_info. It reads more like a partial return-value listing than a statement of purpose, and it offers no differentiation from siblings such as sample_volume or get_attrib_stats.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a valid node path pointing at a volume-bearing node), and no pointer to alternatives like sample_volume for reading voxel values. The agent must guess the selection conditions entirely.

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