mmar_get_port_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'full details' indicates the return scope, but it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or the structure of the returned details.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundant wording or filler; every word contributes to the purpose.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention whether a valid session is required (given sibling tools like mmar_login and mmar_check_session) or what 'full details' includes, leaving some context gaps.

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 input schema already documents the single uuid parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new information beyond repeating 'by its UUID'. The schema is sufficient, and the description does not need to compensate for missing 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'full details of a specific port instance by its UUID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mmar_get_port and mmar_get_port_instances_for_scene_instance by focusing on a single instance identified by UUID.

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 'by its UUID' implies this tool is for retrieving a single known instance rather than listing instances for a scene. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or state any exclusions, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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