get_instructions

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return type ('Prompt object with detailed instructions') but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or authentication requirements. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 well-structured with an Args section and a Returns section, making it easy to parse. It includes a bulleted list of use cases. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately explains the return value. It covers all possible inputs and notes how the output is used for further planning. It is complete for a tool that provides contextual guidance.

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?

The input schema only specifies the 'use_case' parameter as a string with no description or enum. The description compensates by explicitly listing all allowed values ('pipeline', 'data', etc.), adding critical semantic information beyond the schema.

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 tool's action ('Get detailed instructions') and the resource ('specific Bauplan use cases'). It enumerates specific use cases, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only tool providing instructional guidance for high-level tasks.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('to solve the task') and hints at its role in suggesting further tool usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar purposes.

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