get_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly says 'GET', which indicates a read-only operation, and 'Retrieve' further clarifies that it doesn't mutate data. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., 404 for missing instance), authentication requirements, or rate limiting, which are relevant for a network call.

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—two sentences plus a code example—with every element earning its place. It front-loads the core action ('Retrieve details of a specific instance') and the example is helpful. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is a simple get-by-id operation, and the description covers the essential action, endpoint, and example. Since an output schema exists, return values are already handled. It could benefit from a brief note about error behavior or prerequisites (e.g., instance must exist), but these are minor gaps for such a straightforward tool.

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 input schema has one required integer parameter (instance_id) with zero description coverage. The description adds an example call (get_instance(instance_id=12345)) that demonstrates the syntax, and the endpoint clarifies that the ID identifies the target instance. However, it does not explain the type system or how to obtain a valid instance_id (e.g., from list_instances).

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 'Retrieve details of a specific instance' and includes the exact HTTP endpoint (GET /instances/{id}/), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. This positions it distinctly as a single-item getter compared to siblings like list_instances, destroy_instance, or create_instance.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only shows an example invocation, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when a specific instance_id is known. It does not mention related tools like list_instances for discovering IDs or how to handle different scenarios.

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