mmar_get_relationclass_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get the full details', which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it's read-only, whether an active session is required, or any potential side effects. It also does not clarify the return structure beyond 'full 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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and key selection criterion. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or irrelevant 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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the basic action. However, 'full details' is vague and does not specify what is included, such as attributes, roles, or other related data. Since there is no output schema, the description could benefit from elaborating on the return value.

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 description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'uuid' described as 'The UUID of the RelationclassInstance to retrieve'. The description simply references 'UUID' without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details of a specific relationclass instance', and specifies the selection mechanism 'by its UUID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mmar_get_relationclass_instances (plural) and mmar_get_relationclass (type definition) by emphasizing 'specific' and 'connection/edge'.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you have a UUID of a relationclass instance and need its full details. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as for listing all instances (use mmar_get_relationclass_instances) or for retrieving the relationclass type definition (use mmar_get_relationclass).

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