Getting a specific instance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating the tool is safe and non-mutating. The description adds the permission requirement 'view_automations', which is a helpful behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences: a title phrase, a clear action statement, and a permission note. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description provides basic context for a simple 'get' operation. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. While it doesn't elaborate on parameters like verbose or response_format, the schema covers them. For the tool's low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all four parameters (org_id, verbose, automation_id, response_format). The description does not add any additional meaning or usage context for the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action: 'Gets details about a automation instance specified by its ID.' The verb 'gets' and resource 'automation instance' are specific. It differentiates from siblings like list_automation_instances (which lists all) and create_automation_instance (which creates).

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 mentions 'Perm: view_automations' which provides a permission prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_automation_instances or other get tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and basic purpose.

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