get_instance_status

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 mentions that job counts are from a 'recent sample,' which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. The description adds some value but leaves gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the most important info ('Global Airbyte health snapshot. Start here for monitoring workflows.'). Every word earns its place; no wasted text.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), the description appropriately summarizes return values without repeating schema details. However, it omits any explanation of the 'env' parameter and does not clarify 'recent sample' bounds. Adequate but missing some context for full understanding.

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 schema has one parameter 'env' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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's a 'Global Airbyte health snapshot' and lists specific return data (health text, workspace count, connection counts, job counts). It positions itself as the starting point for monitoring, distinguishing it from more specific sibling tools like get_connection or get_job.

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 'Start here for monitoring workflows' explicitly guides when to use this tool—as a first check for overall health. It does not list exclusions, but the context from sibling tools implies alternatives for detailed views. A clear context is provided.

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