instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key safety behaviors: destructive ops require confirm, and reveal is opt-in (tokens masked by default). However, it does not mention how tokens are stored, whether operations are idempotent, or the consequences of delete beyond requiring confirm. The file path and action list add useful context, but the description remains somewhat thin for a tool with this many actions.

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 highly concise, starting with the resource and file path, then listing actions and safety constraints in a structured, scannable format. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 has 10 parameters, 8 actions, and an output schema, the description does a good job covering the essential actions and safety rules. It omits nuance around import-env and cloud-info but those are niche. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, so the description is adequately complete for the complexity.

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 coverage is low at 60%, so the description compensates somewhat by mapping parameters to actions (e.g., list(reveal?), delete(name, confirm)). This clarifies which optional parameters apply to each action, which the schema alone does not convey. However, it does not explain the meaning of verifySsl or token beyond what the schema already provides, missing an opportunity to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Multi-instance registry CRUD' and enumerates the exact actions, giving a specific verb+resource focus. It differentiates from sibling tools by pointing to a specific config file and instance management domain, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like server or resource.

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 implies usage for managing instances but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It mentions safety confirm and reveal opt-in, which are behavioral constraints rather than usage context. No examples of when this tool is preferred are given.

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