iaas_get_disk_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond restating the endpoint path (which is already duplicated in the annotation title) – no mention of behavior when the disk or snapshot id is unknown, or of the disk→snapshot containment relationship beyond the bare phrase 'specific disk'.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the verb and resource; there is no filler prose. The raw 'GET /iaas/api/...' line is largely redundant with the annotation title, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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, three-parameter read with full schema coverage, rich annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool correctly. It nonetheless leaves out anything about error/not-found behavior or the relationship between the disk id and snapshot id, which a marginally richer definition would supply.

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 100% – id, id1 and apiVersion are each documented in the schema, including the (path) markers. The description only echoes the path template, adding no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get disk snapshot ... with a given id for specific disk'), which clearly distinguishes a single-resource fetch from the listing sibling iaas_get_disk_snapshots. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from 'a given id' rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the list endpoint iaas_get_disk_snapshots or vs. the sibling iaas_delete_block_device_snapshot. The only hint is the phrase 'with a given id', which implies single-record retrieval but names no alternative, matching the calibration level for 'no when-to-use' descriptions.

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