Get volume snapshot

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the title by revealing the unexpected write-access requirement and by warning that this is not a read-only operation. A fuller description might include return behavior, but for a 'get' action the added auth context is meaningful.

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 two sentences and front-loads the key facts: what the tool does, the volume-scoped nature, the access requirement, and the sibling alternative. The docs link is brief and adds value without bloating the description.

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 two-parameter get operation with no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing context: access requirements, scope, and a link to authoritative documentation. It only falls short by not spelling out parameter semantics, which is already accounted for in that dimension.

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, but it gives no explicit parameter definitions. The names 'name' and 'snapshotName' are suggestive, and the phrase 'of a volume' hints that one parameter is the volume, but an agent still has to infer the exact meaning of both fields.

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: getting one snapshot of a volume via a volume-scoped action. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling snapshot_get by noting the difference between the volume-scoped action and read-only introspection. An agent can clearly identify what this tool does and how it differs from similar snapshot tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool versus an alternative: this requires write access, while snapshot_get is for read-only introspection. That is direct, actionable guidance with no room for ambiguity.

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