list_instances

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

With no annotations, the description covers the tool's behavior well: it lists instances from two discovery methods, returns specific data fields, and indicates the connected instance. No side effects or permissions mentioned, but it's a read-only list.

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 very concise, with two sentences that convey the purpose, source, and output. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. It covers the key aspects for a list tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info since schema coverage is 100%.

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 the tool lists known Ghidra instances from specific sources (UDS discovery and TCP fallback) and returns specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect_instance by focusing on listing, not connecting.

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 usage for discovering instances before connecting, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. No when-not or exclusion context is provided.

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