get_instance_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose pagination behavior and large-scale support, and implicitly signals a read operation, but it never states that results are returned as a collection, whether the query is scoped to a project, or what the cost of the include_all-style bulk path is beyond the schema's own warning.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the five-bullet 'Functions' list contains filler that restates the schema ('Support large-scale environments with configurable limits') and mixes 'basic instance information' against the 'detailed' framing. A tighter two-sentence description would serve better.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are fully described in the schema. The remaining need is purpose and usage framing, which the description supplies, making it complete enough to invoke correctly.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds only a general note about 'configurable limits' and pagination. It does not explain the relationship between instance_ids, instance_names, all_instances, and include_all, which is the one place narrative could have added real value.

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 a clear verb+resource (retrieve detailed information and status for OpenStack instances) and enumerates the specific data it returns (network/IPs, CPU/memory/storage, metadata, keypair, security groups). However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like get_instance, get_instance_by_name, get_instances_by_status, or search_instances, and the bullet 'Query basic instance information' partially undercuts the 'details' framing of the name.

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 closing sentence gives usage triggers (VM details, server analysis, instance troubleshooting), which is better than nothing. But those triggers overlap almost entirely with what get_instance, get_instance_by_name, and search_instances would also claim, and no alternative or exclusion is named despite four closely related siblings.

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