get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool 'gets detailed information', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behaviors like error handling when the instance does not exist, or any authorization requirements. The output schema helps, but the description itself is minimal.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The argument details are minimal and useful, avoiding unnecessary repetition of schema metadata. No fluff is present.

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 single-instance retrieval tool with an output schema, the description plus schema cover the essential semantics. The zone default behavior is clarified. It lacks some detail like potential not-found behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple get operation.

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 description explains both parameters beyond the schema: instance_id is identified as the ID of the instance to retrieve, and zone is described with a concrete example ('fr-par-1') and a note about defaulting. The schema itself has no descriptions for properties, so this added meaning is essential and well done.

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 starts with 'Get detailed information about a specific instance', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('instance'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_instances, which lists all instances rather than retrieving one specific instance.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving a single instance by ID, contrasting with list_instances which would list many. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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