get_instructions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation via the verb 'return,' and the tool has no parameters or side effects. However, it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or mention any other behavioral traits beyond what the description conveys, but for a simple informational tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence adds actionable usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 simple, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully explains what it returns and when to use it. Given the complexity of the sibling tools, this guidance tool is well-specified.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so according to the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits any parameter details, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Return this server's usage instructions and recommended workflow.' It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('usage instructions'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all turbosign operations or refresh_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?

The description explicitly tells when to use it: 'Call this after a context compaction, or whenever it is unclear which tool to reach for.' This gives clear context and implies that if you know which tool to use, you shouldn't call this.

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