ci_products_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only conveys the HTTP GET method, implying a read, but says nothing about authentication, error behavior, whether relationships are included by default, or what happens with the include/fields parameters.

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 endpoint path is duplicated in parentheses, wasting space, and there is no front-loaded plain-language explanation. The definition is short but under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

This is a 7-parameter retrieval tool with relationship includes and no output schema; the description should explain what a CI product is and what the include/fields options return. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin for the tool's 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the id, include, fields, and limit parameters. The description's '{id}' placeholder adds no meaning beyond the schema, but the high coverage baseline makes a 3 appropriate.

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 is essentially a tautology: it repeats the endpoint path 'GET /v1/ciProducts/{id}' twice and adds no plain-language statement of purpose. It does not distinguish this single-resource fetch from sibling operations like ci_products_get_collection or ci_products_app_get_to_one_related.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ci_products_get_collection, ci_products_workflows_get_to_many_related, or apps_ci_product_get_to_one_related. The description supplies no context, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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