mmar_get_role_instance

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state the return content (class instance reference and cardinality), implying a read-only operation via 'Get'. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid UUID), required authentication, or any potential side effects. The transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and returns. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant fluff. It is compact and easily scannable.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It names the input (UUID) and describes the key return fields. It lacks error-handling details or relationship to a session, but these are not strictly necessary for a basic retrieval tool. The richness of siblings suggests this is one of many similar getters, and the description gives enough to use it correctly.

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%: the 'uuid' parameter is described as 'The UUID of the RoleInstance to retrieve'. The description merely repeats 'by its UUID' without adding new semantic details such as format expectations, default behavior, or examples. Since the schema carries the full weight, 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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'role instance' and identifies the lookup key ('by its UUID'). It also notes what is returned ('class instance reference and cardinality'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mmar_get_role (definition) and mmar_update_role_instance (mutation).

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 usage is implied: it retrieves details for a given role instance. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., mmar_get_role) nor does it mention any preconditions like having a valid session or UUID. No exclusions or forked guidance are provided.

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