get_instances

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It explains what resource instances are but does not mention pagination, read-only guarantees, error cases, or whether results are limited. The added context about state information is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence provides useful context about resource instances without unnecessary fluff, making every word earn its place.

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 one-parameter get operation with a fully described schema and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and what resource instances are, without needing to detail return values since the output schema handles that.

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 sole parameter resource_name is already fully described in the schema with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's coverage, which is at 100%, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves all instances of a Lifecycle Manager resource, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like describe_instance by explicitly scoping to 'all instances' rather than a single one.

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 for fetching all instances of a resource, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over describe_instance or get_resources. No alternative tools are mentioned or excluded.

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