get_boot_volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections that efficiently document inputs and outputs. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the parameter and return value at a high level, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a simple read tool, it meets minimum viability but could be more comprehensive.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter: 'boot_volume_id: OCID of the boot volume to retrieve.' This clarifies that the ID is an OCID (Oracle Cloud Identifier) and specifies its purpose. With schema description coverage at 0% (no schema descriptions), the description fully compensates by providing essential parameter context, though it doesn't cover format or validation rules.

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 purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific boot volume.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('boot volume'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_volume' or 'list_boot_volumes', which would require a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_boot_volumes' for listing volumes or 'get_volume' for other volume types, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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