get_instance_properties

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about error behavior for a missing/invalid instanceId, whether the read is non-destructive, or the shape of what comes back. 'Get componentProperties' is purely informational and adds no behavioral context.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero padding or filler. It is appropriately sized for what it attempts, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description is the only source of information, and it omits the return structure (what a componentProperty looks like) and error conditions. For a tool whose whole value is returning a specific property payload, this is a substantial gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented instanceId parameter. It only implies via 'for an instance' that instanceId identifies the target instance, adding no format, source (node id vs. key), or lookup detail beyond what the parameter name already suggests.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and a specific resource (componentProperties) scoped to an instance, which is more precise than a bare tautology. It is distinguishable from set_instance_properties (the mutation counterpart) and get_instance_slots (slots rather than properties), but it never names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_component_property_definitions or get_instance_slots, which an agent could easily confuse with this call. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name and the one-word resource.

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