get_instrument

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It simply states the tool gets details, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as auth requirements, error handling (e.g., if ID not found), or that it is a read-only operation. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name and input schema.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, it could include slight elaboration without being verbose, so a small deduction is made.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), return values need not be explained, but the description does not address when to use this vs list_instruments, nor any prerequisites or typical usage scenarios. The tool is simple, but the description lacks contextual completeness to fully guide the agent.

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 covers the parameter fully (100% description coverage). The description only mentions 'berdasarkan ID' without adding new semantics or constraints. According to the scoring guidelines, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description does not compensate with additional context.

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 action 'Ambil detail' (get details) and the resource 'satu instrumen' (an instrument), with the method 'berdasarkan ID' (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_instruments (which lists without ID) and CRUD domain tools.

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. For instance, it doesn't specify that this should be used when an instrument ID is known, and that list_instruments is for browsing without an ID. The description lacks explicit usage context.

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