scan_instances_with_sources

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the return payload. It omits pagination behavior despite offset/chunkSize parameters, whether traversal is recursive, and what 'main' component means for instance-of-set vs instance-of-component cases.

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 no filler, and the core operation is stated first. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structure itself is clean.

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 read/scan tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three zero-coverage parameters, the description is too thin. An agent lacks pagination semantics, recursion behavior, and the shape of the returned keys, all of which matter for calling it correctly.

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% and all three parameters are undocumented. The phrase 'root node' loosely maps to rootNodeId, but offset and chunkSize — clearly a pagination pair — receive no explanation of units, defaults, or bounds anywhere.

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 ('scan instances') plus scope ('under a root node') and the return payload ('main component/component-set keys'). However, it does not differentiate from nearby siblings like scan_nodes_by_types or get_instance_source, so the agent must infer 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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named, despite several closely related scanning tools in the sibling list. The 'under a root node' phrasing only weakly implies the scoping condition, leaving selection guidance to inference.

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