qui_get_arr_instance

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the important behavioral convention for passing arguments: path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. This goes beyond the schema/annotations by explaining how the tool expects inputs, which is valuable for correct invocation. No contradiction with 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 two concise sentences, each providing essential information: the endpoint to call and how arguments should be structured. No unnecessary words, fluff, or repetition of schema data. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage mechanics.

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 GET-by-ID tool, the description covers the essential invocation details (path/query/body structure) and the read-only nature is known from annotations. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The only minor gap is that it leaves the agent to deduce from the endpoint path that this retrieves a specific instance, but the tool name and path make that clear enough.

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 is generic (an 'arguments' object with no defined properties), providing 0% coverage. The description compensates by explaining the argument-passing structure (path/query/body). However, it does not enumerate the specific path variables or query parameters required, leaving the agent to infer from the endpoint path that an 'id' is needed. Still, it adds meaningful semantics 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?

The description clearly states it calls the GET /arr/instances/{id} endpoint, which unambiguously indicates retrieving a specific ARR instance by ID. This distinguishes it from siblings like qui_list_arr_instances (list) and create/update/delete mutations. The verb 'get' and the resource path are specific and clear.

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 when to use this tool (when you have an ID to fetch a specific instance) by referencing the path template, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of using qui_list_arr_instances for listing all instances or the mutation tools for changes, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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