block_storage_get_volume_status

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

Despite no annotations, the description adds that it returns attachment, usage, and cost details, and that identifier resolution is smart (label or ID). It does not explicitly state read-only side effects, permissions, or error handling. The 'Get' prefix implies a safe read, but more disclosure would benefit an agent with no annotation safety information.

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 short and well-structured: purpose first, followed by smart resolution note, then organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place. No unnecessary details or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to itemize every return field; it still lists attachment, usage, and cost as examples. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and a sensible scope. It doesn't mention error handling or how to distinguish between ID types, but this is acceptable for a one-parameter 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?

With schema coverage at 0% and only a bare type string, the description adds essential semantics: volume_identifier can be a label or ID, and resolution is automatic. This compensates for a completely undocumented schema property. It could include more detail like example formats, but the added meaning is sufficient for a single-param tool.

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 action — 'Get comprehensive status information for a block storage volume' — with a clear resource. 'Smart identifier resolution' further clarifies that the volume can be referenced by label or ID, distinguishing it from listing or mutation tools. Sibling tools like block_storage_list_by_region or block_storage_create are obviously different in intent.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving status of a single volume, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like block_storage_list_by_region or mounting instructions. Nothing states when to choose this over another block_storage getter. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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