get_instance_overrides

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It frames the tool as a read operation with 'Get all...' and the second sentence suggests data reuse, but it does not explicitly state that no mutations occur or describe edge cases (e.g., what if the instance has no overrides). The lack of an output schema also leaves the return format unspecified.

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 consists of two succinct sentences: the first states the primary function, and the second explains the practical value of the returned data. There is no filler or redundant detail, making it well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and provides a usage context. It does not explicitly mention the return format or guarantee read-only behavior, but given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of set_instance_overrides as a counterpart, it is reasonably complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single optional nodeId parameter, including the fallback to the current selection. The tool description does not add any parameter details beyond referring to 'a selected component instance,' so the schema already carries the semantic load.

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's function: 'Get all override properties from a selected component instance.' The verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'override properties' distinguish it from sibling tools like set_instance_overrides and other getter tools. The second sentence adds context about applying these overrides to other instances, which reinforces the tool's purpose.

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 use case: retrieve overrides from one instance so they can be applied to others ('These overrides can be applied to other instances...'). This provides clear contextual guidance but does not explicitly name alternatives like set_instance_overrides or state when not to use the tool. The contrast with the setting sibling is implicit but understandable.

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