get-instruct

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description need not repeat safety traits. It adds valuable context about what guidance is provided (patterns, conventions, common pitfalls), going beyond a generic summary and giving the agent an accurate expectation of the tool's output.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause serves a purpose. It avoids redundancy and formatting issues, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given a single parameter, an output schema, and clear sibling differentiation, the description fully covers the essential context. The alternatives are explicitly named, and no additional return-value explanations are needed since an output schema exists.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a description ('ServiceNow metadata type (e.g., business-rule, script-include)'). The description repeats the same example but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('instructions and best practices for creating a ServiceNow metadata type using the Fluent API'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming get-api-spec and get-snippet as alternatives. This makes the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for instructions/best practices) and provides direct alternatives: 'For API specifications, use get-api-spec. For code examples, use get-snippet.' This gives clear guidance on choosing between related tools.

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