Get volume attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description correctly reinforces a safe read. The phrase 'without connection details' adds genuine value by warning that connector data is excluded, but nothing is said about permission requirements or error behavior for a missing ID.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key scope caveat ('without connection details') is placed where it will be read.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a two-parameter read tool the description is nearly sufficient, with only the project scoping left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 50%: project_id is documented in the schema, while attachment_id carries only length constraints. The description clarifies that the ID identifies the record to fetch, adding marginal meaning over the bare schema, consistent with the baseline for partial coverage.

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 one Cinder attachment record') and scopes it to a single record by ID, which implicitly separates it from list_volume_attachments. It doesn't name the list sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 'one ... by ID' phrasing implies a single-record lookup versus enumeration, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_volume_attachments or get_volume. Guidance is inferable, not stated.

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