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 behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about the return shape, whether properties are fully serialized or reference/child-truncated, error behavior for an invalid or nonexistent path, or any permission prerequisites.

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?

A single sentence with the verb, resource, addressing format, and a worked example front-loaded. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at least sketch what 'properties' means in the response. For a one-parameter read tool the purpose is clear enough to call, but the return-value gap leaves the agent guessing about the shape of the result.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies the dotted-path format and gives a concrete example ('Workspace.SpawnLocation'). What it does not clarify is indexing syntax for array children or how ambiguous names are resolved.

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 ('properties of one instance'), and the dotted-path example pins down the addressing model. It does not name or distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as get_scene, find_instances, or get_children, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 phrase 'one instance by dotted path' implies the use case (a single, already-known instance), which implicitly contrasts with find_instances/get_children. However there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of how to obtain a valid path or what to do when the path is unknown.

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