iaas_get_machine_disk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the route itself – no note on auth requirements, error semantics for an unknown diskId, or what happens with a mismatched machine/disk pairing.

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 operation and followed by the route, with zero filler. The only minor waste is that "Get machine disk" and "Get disk with a given id for specific machine" restate the same fact, but the size is appropriate for a simple read tool.

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 two-id read operation with a fully documented schema and rich annotations, the essentials are present. The gaps are that it does not distinguish itself from the plural list sibling, does not indicate the shape of the returned disk object (no output schema exists), and gives no failure mode guidance for an invalid or mismatched diskId.

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, diskId and apiVersion are all documented in the schema, including the yyyy-MM-dd apiVersion format and the pointer to /iaas/api/about. The description mentions the machine-scoped disk relationship implicitly but adds no format, constraint, or hint beyond what the schema already provides.

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 disk by id belonging to a specific machine) and reinforces it with the exact REST path with both path parameters. It is clear what the tool retrieves, but it never names the sibling iaas_get_machine_disks (the list variant) or iaas_get_block_device, so the agent must infer the distinction from the plural name alone.

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?

"Get disk with a given id for specific machine" implies the precondition that you must already hold both a machine id and a disk id, which is useful context. However there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of when to prefer iaas_get_machine_disks for enumeration, and no stated behavior when the disk id does not belong to the given machine.

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