get_instance_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether instance names are unique, what happens when the name is not found (error vs empty), or whether any permissions are required. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return fields, but the missing-not-found behavior is a real gap for a lookup tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste and the lookup key surfaced early. It is appropriately sized, though there is little content to be concise about given the omitted guidance.

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?

With one documented parameter and an output schema covering return values, the definition is minimally servable. The unresolved ambiguity against get_instance, get_instance_details, and search_instances in a crowded namespace is the main completeness gap an agent would care about.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage ('Name of the instance to retrieve'), so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing beyond restating the parameter, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 and resource ('Get detailed information for a specific instance') plus the lookup key ('by name'), so the operation itself is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related siblings get_instance, get_instance_details, and search_instances, leaving the agent to guess which instance accessor to pick.

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 statement, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer the ID-based get_instance or the broader search_instances. The 'by name' phrasing faintly implies the ID-based alternative, but the agent must infer that from the tool name alone.

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