get_instruction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the full text is returned, but does not disclose what happens when the id/code is not found, whether max_chars truncates the text, or any other potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a retrieval tool with no 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and includes essential input options. It contains zero wasted words and is immediately understandable.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and input formats. However, it omits important behavioral details such as the effect of max_chars (truncation?) and error/not-found behavior, which are not covered by any schema or annotation. This incompleteness makes it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both 'id' and 'max_chars'. The description adds value by clarifying that the id can come from list_instructions/search_instructions, providing a direct link to the sibling workflow. This goes slightly beyond the schema, warranting a 4.

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 tool returns the full text of a 1C.BIT user instruction, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('full text of instruction'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_instructions and search_instructions by specifying that input comes from those tools or by code, making its role as a fetch-by-id/code operation clear.

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 implies a clear workflow: first use list_instructions/search_instructions to get an id, then call this tool, or provide a known instruction code. It provides context on when to use the tool but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use semantic_search_instructions when...'), so it loses a point for not being fully explicit.

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