get_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention potential errors, authentication, or any side effects. The verb 'get' implicitly suggests read-only, but the description adds no explicit behavioral context beyond the name.

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, coherent sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and easily parseable, making it concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about how to obtain a volume_id and what constitutes 'details'. It does not reference sibling tools or error behavior, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 one parameter (volume_id) with no description, and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate by explaining where the ID comes from or its format. The parameter is self-explanatory by name alone, but the description adds no value.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a single OpenFic volume'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_volumes' by specifying 'single', making the purpose 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the presence of sibling tools like 'list_volumes'. There is no mention of when not to use it or any recommended workflow.

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