get_instance

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 does usefully disclose the payload identity (two specific files, config + component pack), implying a read-only non-destructive operation, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown id, whether it errors or returns partial data, or the response shape.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and the parenthetical filenames add precision rather than padding. Nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the two files returned, which is the most valuable missing piece for a 1-param read tool. Only the id argument's format is left unexplained, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains it. It implies the argument identifies the instance, but never states accepted form (instance id vs name vs path), so the caller is left guessing on the one input that is required.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one instance), and names exactly what is retrieved — the instance.cfg settings and mmc-pack.json component pack. That content differs from get_instance_setting (a single setting) enough for an agent to distinguish them, though no sibling is referenced by name.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone whether to call get_instance versus get_instance_setting, list_instance_settings, or list_instances; nothing in the text resolves that ambiguity or states prerequisites such as instance existence.

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