get_instance_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what the response contains (failure error messages, file sizes), which is more than a generic 'get details' would, but it says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, or whether any state changes.

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 the purpose front-loaded and the return-content detail appended. No redundant or filler wording; appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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 values need not be spelled out; the description nonetheless summarizes them. The remaining gap is invocation guidance for the single undocumented parameter and any note on how to obtain a valid instance_id, which leaves the definition merely adequate.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that instance_id identifies a 'specific instance run', but gives no format, source, or acquisition guidance for the ID, so meaning is only partially added beyond 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?

States a specific verb 'Retrieves' and a specific resource 'detailed diagnostic information for a specific instance run', and even names the payload (failure error messages, file sizes). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_doc_instances (which lists instances), though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'for a specific instance run' only implies you must already know an instance_id, leaving the agent to infer that a listing call must precede it.

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