Get snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does meaningfully state that this is a plain read-only GET, which signals no side effects and read-only-mode compatibility. It does not describe response shape, error behavior for missing IDs, or any authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 very short: one sentence with the essential behavior and a documentation link. It is front-loaded with the key action and read-only note, with no filler or redundant information. Every part adds value.

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 get operation with no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the core behavior and safe execution. The docs link adds helpful reference material. Minor missing details like id format and error semantics prevent a 5, but overall this is reasonably complete for the tool's low complexity.

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 for the undocumented parameter. 'by id' loosely indicates that the id parameter identifies the snapshot, but it does not explain the expected format (e.g., name vs. UUID) or where to obtain valid IDs. This is minimal compensation for a schema with no description at all.

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 ('Get'), a resource ('single snapshot by id'), and the HTTP nature ('plain read-only GET'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like snapshot_list or volume_snapshot_get, but 'by id' and 'single' imply a targeted fetch rather than a list operation.

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 'available in --read-only mode' gives useful operational context, implying this is a safe read operation suitable for read-only environments. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternative guidance, such as 'use snapshot_list to enumerate snapshots' or 'use volume_snapshot_get for volume-scoped retrieval.'

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