Get volume attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. Get clearly signals a read-only retrieval with no mutation or destructive side effects. It does not cover failure behavior like not-found errors, but the core safety trait is adequately disclosed.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The action, resource, and retrieval key are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is low complexity with one required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers the essential invocation details. It omits mention of alternatives or error cases, but those are secondary for a simple getter.

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 percent, so the description must compensate. The phrase by name clarifies that the name parameter is the record identifier, but it adds no detail about format, uniqueness, or how the name relates to the VolumeAttachment resource. This is adequate but 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?

The description uses a specific verb, Get, a specific resource, VolumeAttachment record, and a retrieval scope, by name. It clearly distinguishes this single-record lookup from the sibling volumeattachment_list tool.

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 VolumeAttachment record by name implies this tool is for individual lookups rather than listing. However, it never explicitly names the list alternative or states when to prefer one over the other, so usage guidance is only implied.

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