get_instrument_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It indicates the tool is read-only ('Get detailed information') and lists return fields, but does not mention safety, authentication, or side effects. The revealed details are sufficient for a simple query tool.

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 concise, with two sentences for the main explanation and a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, simple read operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential points. However, it could mention error handling for unknown instruments or how to obtain a list of valid instrument names.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by defining the parameter as 'Instrument name' with examples ('violin', 'horn', 'clarinet'). This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify case sensitivity or valid values.

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 gets detailed instrument information and lists the specific return fields (range, transposition, family), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_instrument_range or transpose_for_instrument.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as check_instrument_range or suggest_instrumentation. It lacks explicit contexts or exclusions.

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