Get volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; 'Get a single Longhorn volume' indicates a read-only lookup with no side effects. However, it does not disclose response format, not-found handling, or permissions, so some transparency gaps remain.

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 core statement is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the optional docs link is a useful reference. Every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter getter, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly, but without an output schema it omits what the response contains and how failures surface. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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% and the description only rephrases the schema's name field as 'by name' without adding format, examples, or identifier constraints. The self-evident string parameter is not enough to compensate for the low 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?

States the exact verb (get), resource (single Longhorn volume), and lookup key (name), which clearly distinguishes it from volume_list and other volume_* operations. The phrase 'by name' also differentiates it from getters that use IDs or filters.

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 makes it clear this is for fetching exactly one volume when its name is known, giving clear context for when to choose it over volume_list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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