cloud_insts_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Retrieve') and mentions a cookie parameter affecting output. However, it does not describe error handling, permissions, or return value structure. Given the lack of annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 structured into sections but is verbose, including markdown formatting for cookie parameters. It could be more concise by integrating the notes into the main description. Front-loading is present but the length reduces efficiency.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides parameter resolution context but lacks expected return values, error scenarios, or scope of 'detailed information'. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand tool behavior.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description adds meaning. It explains the three required parameters (project_id, region_id, instance_id) with resolution rules. Optional parameters (extra_headers, extra_query, extra_body, timeout) are listed but not explained beyond names. Semantics for required params are well-addressed, but optional ones lack context.

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 it retrieves detailed information about a specific instance, using specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'instance'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cloud_insts_ls (list) and cloud_insts_get_con (console), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit instructions on how to provide project_id, region_id (pass numeric, resolve names via other tools, use defaults). It guides the agent on when to use this tool after resolving names, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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