get_instance_children

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'child objects' entails (e.g., depth, format). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for the information provided.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool's context is incomplete. The description doesn't clarify what 'child objects' are, how results are structured, or any limitations, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns complex data. More detail is needed to compensate for the lack of structured fields.

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%, with the single parameter 'instancePath' documented as 'Path to the parent instance'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain the parameter's role or format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get child objects and their types' clearly states the action (get) and target (child objects and types), but it's vague about what 'objects' and 'types' refer to in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_instance_properties' or 'get_project_structure', leaving ambiguity about scope and resource specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_instance_properties' and 'get_project_structure' that might overlap in functionality, the description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, offering no help for tool selection.

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