instance_resource

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('获取') but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it describe permissions, error behavior, or output structure. The lack of output schema makes this more critical.

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 concise with one line for purpose followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded and to the point, though a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) would improve readability.

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 output schema and the need for return format details, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or error conditions. For a resource retrieval tool, this is a significant gap.

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 description provides clear explanations for all five parameters, including their roles (e.g., '数据库名' for db_name). Since the input schema only has titles, this adds meaningful semantic value and compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 it retrieves resource information within an instance, listing the hierarchy (database/schema/table/column). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sqlquery_resources or instance_table_lookup, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context about when it is appropriate. Sibling tools include similar resource queries, making this gap impactful.

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