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. It discloses the returned data dimensions and the max_volumes cap, and clarifies the semantic distinction between primitive count and active voxel count. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error behavior, but the 'get' verb and the disclosed scope make the behavior sufficiently transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: one line summarizes returns, one sentence motivates the tool, one line names the sibling counterpart, and two lines document args. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description tells the agent what will be returned, which path to target, and how to cap results. It also connects to the COP sibling for cross-context understanding. A return shape is not specified, but the listed fields are sufficient for selection and invocation.

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%, so the Args section must compensate, and it does: node_path is defined as the SOP path holding volume/VDB primitives, and max_volumes as the cap on reported volumes. These add real meaning beyond the schema titles, though the descriptions are terse and do not mention the default 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 opens with a precise statement of what the tool returns: per-volume name, resolution, active voxel count, and value range. It clearly identifies the resource as SOP volume or VDB primitives and explicitly distinguishes itself as the SOP counterpart of get_cop_vdb.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: checking whether a density field is non-empty before wiring a solver's sourcing, and explains why primitive count is insufficient. It names the sibling get_cop_vdb as the counterpart, giving the agent a clear alternative, though it does not enumerate exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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