get_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds an important security-relevant behavior: 'Secrets are encrypted and decrypted locally.' It also implies a read-only operation via 'Get', which is clear. However, it does not mention any side effects or prerequisites, but for a get operation this is acceptable.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and valuable detail about return contents. The second sentence about encryption is relevant and not redundant. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It does mention connection details (IP, SSH port, admin credentials) and the local decryption behavior. It could be more explicit about other possible fields, but for a get tool with a clear scope, it is sufficiently complete.

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 both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters (e.g., how instanceId differs between node and vps, or how type affects the return). Since the schema covers everything, a baseline of 3 is 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 clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('a specific instance'). It specifies the kind of details including IP address, SSH port, and admin credentials, which differentiates it from list_instances that likely provides summary information for many instances.

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 tool's purpose implies when to use it (when needing a single instance's details), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like list_instances for broad listing. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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