get_instance_by_name

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns 'detailed information or error message if not found,' which is minimal. It does not mention any side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps for an unannotated 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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose plus standard Args/Returns structure. Every sentence is earned and no fluff exists.

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 is simple with one parameter and an implied output schema, the description covers the basics. However, in a context with 40+ sibling tools, it lacks guidance on how this tool relates to similar ones like 'get_instance,' reducing completeness.

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 schema has 0% coverage (no description for the parameter), but the description's Args section explicitly documents 'instance_name: Name of the instance to retrieve,' adding meaning beyond the schema type. While helpful, it is still minimal and does not provide format or constraints.

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 states 'Get detailed information for a specific instance by name,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_instance' (likely by ID) and 'search_instances' (possibly broader search), though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_instances' or 'get_instance'. No prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions are mentioned.

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