get_instance_details

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and returns vague 'detailed information' without addressing permissions, side effects, error behavior, or the read-only nature. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, Args, and Returns sections. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes essential information without 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 has no output schema or annotations, so the description must adequately explain return values. 'Detailed information' is vague and does not specify what fields or data are included. Given the presence of a list_compute_instances sibling, more detail about the return structure would help the agent decide when to use this 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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains each parameter meaningfully, including an example for zone ('us-central1-a'). It compensates well for the schema gap, though it could provide more format or constraint details.

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'), the resource ('Compute Engine instance'), and the scope ('specific', distinguishing from listing). This also differentiates from sibling tools like list_compute_instances and get_sql_instance_details.

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 implies use for retrieving details of a single instance but does not explicitly mention when to use this vs list_compute_instances or other alternatives. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided, making the usage implied rather than explicit.

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