Get backup volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a single backup volume by name' and links to docs; it does not mention return format, not-found behavior, permission requirements, or whether the operation is a safe read. This is thin for an unannotated tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core operation immediately, followed by a useful documentation link. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simplicity, one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate with the docs link offering an escape hatch. Still, it leaves out basic behavioral expectations such as what the response contains and what happens when the named backup volume does not exist.

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 description must compensate. The phrase 'by name' does add meaning beyond the bare 'name' property by confirming that the parameter is the lookup identifier. However, it provides no detail about name format, uniqueness, or expected values, so compensation is only partial.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a single backup volume'), and the lookup key ('by name'). It distinguishes itself from list-style siblings by emphasizing 'single,' though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 use case is implied: use this when you need one backup volume by name rather than a list. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer backupvolume_get over backupvolume_list or backupvolume_backup_get, and no when-not-to-use context.

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