Describe Instance

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only behavior is known. The description adds the error behavior when the instance does not exist, which is useful beyond annotations, but it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as authorization requirements or limits. This is adequate but minimal.

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 at two sentences, but the first sentence is largely redundant with the title and the second sentence repeats 'gets' and 'instance details'. It could be tightened without losing meaning, but there is minimal waste.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior for a simple read-only lookup. It mentions the error case and that details are returned. However, it does not explicitly clarify the role of resource_name, which is important context but not critical given the schema.

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 already documents both parameters (instance_name and resource_name). The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond referring to the instance_name argument; it does not clarify resource_name or any parameter relationships.

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 details about an instance of a Lifecycle Manager resource, using a specific verb and identifying the resource type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like describe_resource or describe_session, which serve similar 'describe' purposes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_resource or get_instances. The description only mentions an error condition when the instance does not exist, which is not usage guidance. It lacks context on prerequisites or selection criteria.

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