get_instance

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: returns a trimmed summary by default unless raw=true, which changes the output to the full OCI SDK object. This adds value beyond the schema and conveys output behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the raw flag behavior are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 get-instance tool, the description plus schema covers the essential information: what the tool does, how to adjust output (raw), and all parameters. It does not detail the exact fields in the trimmed summary, but this is not critical for a read operation.

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 each parameter already explained. The description only mentions raw=true's effect but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states 'Returns details of a specific Compute instance', identifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_instances by emphasizing a single instance rather than a list.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need details of one specific instance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., list_instances) or state when not to use, leaving the agent to infer from the 'specific' wording.

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