get_doc_instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by declaring this is a read operation and enumerating the status values (Success, Failed, Running) and timestamps, but it says nothing about result limits, the existence of the max_instances cap (default 50), ordering, or auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource is stated before the returned fields. Efficient, though it trades away any routing or parameter information for brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required. However, for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves too much unsaid about the limit parameter and when to choose this over get_instance_details.

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 0% and the description never mentions webi_doc_id or max_instances. The one parameter that constrains behavior (max_instances, default 50) is left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (historical run instances of a Webi report) and even names the payload fields (execution status, timestamps). It does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling get_instance_details, which appears to overlap, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the text alone.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite a crowded sibling set (get_instance_details, delete_instance, get_doc_schedules). Usage must be inferred purely from the tool name.

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