Show Instruction Type

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns a JSON object, but inaccurately describes the content as 'Daily Log records' instead of the instruction type. No contradiction with annotations, but the description provides minimal new behavioral context beyond the 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 four sentences long and covers purpose, usage, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is reasonably concise, though the mention of 'Daily Log records' is slightly misleading and could be removed. No unnecessary fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should more precisely describe the return value (e.g., fields of an Instruction Type). Instead, it vaguely says 'JSON object describing... Daily Log records', which is likely incorrect. It does not explain what an Instruction Type is or how it relates to Daily Log. This incomplete and slightly inaccurate context diminishes its usefulness.

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 all four parameters. The description repeats that project_id and id are required, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The page and per_page parameters are not mentioned in the description, but they are self-explanatory from the schema.

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 it returns detailed information on a specified Instruction Type and mentions fetching by identifier. However, it confusingly refers to 'Daily Log records' instead of the instruction type itself, which slightly muddles the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'show_instruction' through the resource name but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 says to use this to fetch full details by identifier, which gives basic usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., listing instruction types or showing individual instructions). The instruction is adequate but lacks comparative guidance.

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