get_instance_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what kind of metadata is returned or how it relates to other tools, so it only minimally complements the annotations.

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 short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the tool's purpose and each phrase ('OSIRIS instance', 'features', 'supported filters') adds meaningful information.

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 zero parameters, rich non-destructive annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient for safe invocation. Any ambiguity about what 'supported filters' means is resolved by the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 inputs, so the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of 'supported filters' is informative even though no parameters exist, since filters appear to be part of the returned output rather than accepted arguments.

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 states a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('this OSIRIS instance'), and mentions features and supported filters. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling server_info, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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: call this tool to learn about the current OSIRIS instance, its features, and supported filters. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives like server_info, so it misses the explicit when-not guidance of a 5.

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