get_instance_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states what data is returned and adds a valuable nuance with 'edition assumida' (assumed edition), indicating the data's inferred nature. The verb 'Retorna' implies a read-only operation, setting correct expectations.

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, clear sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key return fields without any unnecessary words 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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description adequately covers purpose and behavior. It's a simple retrieval tool, and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 zero parameters, the schema fully covers them (100% coverage). The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none.

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 ('Retorna') and clearly identifies the resource ('configuração do Plane conectado') with specific fields (base_url, workspace, edition assumida). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on issues, cycles, projects, or modules.

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 gives clear context: it's for retrieving instance-level configuration, which makes it obvious when to use it over siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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