liara_get_disk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get details' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific details are returned. This leaves gaps for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks completeness for a read operation with no annotations—missing details on return format, error handling, or prerequisites. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool fetches details for a disk identified by appName and diskName. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific disk'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'liara_list_disks' (which lists multiple disks) or 'liara_get_app' (which gets app details), missing explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using 'liara_list_disks' to find disk names first or clarify that this retrieves details for a single, pre-identified disk. The description lacks context for tool selection.

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