ci_workflows_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, yet it discloses nothing about authentication, rate limits, or return behavior. The endpoint string implies a read, but there is no substantive transparency.

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 text is short but wastes half its length duplicating the same endpoint string in parentheses. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and provides no front-loaded purpose statement.

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?

For a get-instance tool with a rich 7-parameter schema and no output schema, the description should at least say it retrieves a single CI workflow and note the include/fields expansion behavior. It supplies neither, leaving the definition near-empty.

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% with 7 documented parameters (id, include, fields_*), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 just the raw endpoint path 'GET /v1/ciWorkflows/{id}', repeated verbatim in parentheses. It restates the tool name in URL form rather than stating in prose what the tool does, and offers no differentiation from the many sibling get_instance tools.

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_workflows_build_runs_get_to_many_related, ci_workflows_repository_get_to_one_related, or ci_workflows_update_instance. No context or prerequisites are given.

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