get_instance_info

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (version, protocol, permissions, capabilities), which is genuinely informative, but says nothing about whether this is a read-only/no-side-effect call, connection or auth requirements, or failure behavior when the endpoint is unreachable.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero padding, front-loaded with the verb+resource and followed by the return enumeration, which earns its place since there is no output schema. "Detailed information" is mildly generic but is immediately cashed out by the field list.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool, the definition covers purpose, scope, and returned fields, and the schema fully documents the parameter including the env fallback. The only material gap is the absence of any statement about behavior when the endpoint is invalid or unreachable, which is a modest omission rather than a blocker.

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 single optional 'endpoint' parameter already documents accepted URL forms (unix://, serial://, bare path) and the AIMDB_CONNECT fallback in full detail. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get detailed information about a specific AimDB instance") and enumerates the returned payload (version, protocol, permissions, capabilities). It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like list_records or query_schema, though it never names discover_instances or any alternative by name, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The phrase "a specific AimDB instance" only weakly implies this is for a known/connected instance rather than enumeration, leaving the agent to infer the boundary with discover_instances entirely on its own.

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