get_instagram_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the ID-source hint adds a bit of context, but the description does not mention what happens if the ID is not found, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 extremely concise, with the purpose in the first sentence and a single parameter explanation in a clean 'Args' block. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 single-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the parameter semantics, and even points to the related list tool. Error handling is not described, but the output schema already informs the return shape, so no additional context is needed.

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?

Although the schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'name' parameter with a concrete example ('ACT00123') and specifying that it is the 'name' field from list_instagram_chats. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('full details of a single Instagram DM activity'), and access method ('by its ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming the channel (Instagram DM) and the action, making it stand apart from generic get_activity or other channel-specific getters.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining that the 'name' parameter is the Instagram activity ID and pointing to list_instagram_chats as the source for this ID. This implies when to use the tool (after listing chats) without explicitly stating exclusions. It could be improved by explicitly saying to use this instead of get_activity for Instagram DMs, but the channel specificity is already conveyed.

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