Get engine image

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. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation and 'by name' implies exact-identifier lookup, but the description does not mention side effects, error behavior when the image is not found, or what data is returned. For a simple getter this is adequate but minimal.

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 clear, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the operation and target. The Longhorn docs link is extra but relevant context, and the overall size is appropriate for a one-parameter getter.

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 one-parameter read-only getter, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the resource, the selectors, and the action. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return content or not-found behavior, so an agent lacks some context about what to expect from a successful or failed invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add the meaning that the 'name' parameter is the lookup key for a single engine image, but this largely restates what the schema property already suggests. No format, uniqueness, or existence requirements are given, so the contribution is minimal.

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 ('Get'), a distinct resource ('engine image'), and a precise selection mode ('by name'). It clearly differentiates from engineimage_list, which would retrieve multiple images, and from engineimage_create/delete, which are mutations.

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 phrase 'single engine image by name' implicitly signals that this is for retrieving one known image rather than listing all images, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or what to do if the image does not exist. The Longhorn docs link points to upgrade docs but does not clarify tool selection.

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