describe_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that an error is returned if the instance does not exist, which is useful. However, it does not address what happens when the optional instance_name parameter is omitted, nor does it mention permissions or side effects. The description is minimally transparent but has gaps.

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 a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a brief expansion. Every sentence contributes, and there is no fluff or redundant detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and the error condition. However, the optional nature of instance_name and its interaction with resource_name is not addressed, which leaves a small but relevant gap in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that instance_name is the argument identifying the instance, but it does not clarify the relationship with resource_name or the optionality of instance_name. It provides only marginal added meaning over the schema.

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: 'Get details about an instance of a Lifecycle Manager resource.' This uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_resource or describe_session.

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 usage by stating it gets the instance specified in instance_name, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_resource. There is no when-not or alternative guidance, so the usage context is only implied.

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