get_instance_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only implies read-only via 'Get' and says roughly what is returned; it does not state what happens if instanceId is not an instance node, whether detached instances are handled, or any error/auth behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the rationale in a trailing parenthetical. Efficient, though terse enough that it trades brevity for missing detail rather than earning every clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-shape burden; it does name 'keys and properties', which is helpful, but leaves the exact response structure and edge cases unstated for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter.

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 coverage is 0% and the single instanceId parameter has no description in the schema. The description's mention of 'an instance' only weakly signals that instanceId is an instance node; it adds no format guidance (e.g. Figma node-key syntax) beyond the parameter name.

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 and resource: retrieve the main component/component-set keys and properties for an instance. The parenthetical scopes the intent (design system provenance), which separates it from generic getters like get_instance_properties. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 parenthetical 'to verify design system provenance' implies when an agent would reach for this rather than get_instance_properties or get_instance_slots, but no alternative tool or exclusion is stated. Usage is inferable, not prescribed.

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