mmar_get_class_instance

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only operation via 'Get'/'Returns' and discloses what is returned (attribute instances, port instances, position). It could mention session requirements or error behavior, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the action, the target, the identifier, and the return contents, making every word useful.

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?

For a simple single-parameter getter with no output schema, this description supplies the key selection information and a high-level return structure. It doesn't mention prerequisites like an active session or error responses, but those are not critical for this basic read operation.

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 100%: the uuid parameter already has a clear description. The description only restates 'by its UUID' and adds no additional format, constraints, or usage nuance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Get... class instance') and identifies the entry point by UUID. It also clarifies the target as an 'element/node' and enumerates the returned content, distinguishing it from siblings like mmar_get_class_instances (plural listing) and mmar_get_relationclass_instance.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need detailed data for one specific class instance identified by UUID. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the singular 'specific' and the contrast with sibling list tools imply the intended usage.

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