get_instances_based_on_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses pagination behavior to avoid token limits, the return structure including errors, and that it fetches complete content. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the basic 'get' operation.

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 well-structured with a summary, an explanatory paragraph, and well-labeled Args/Returns sections. It is slightly redundant at the start, but all information is useful and earns its place.

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 moderate-complexity tool with no annotations and a zero-coverage schema, the description is highly complete. It covers parameters, return structure, pagination rationale, and error handling, fully equipping an agent to invoke and interpret the tool 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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter: template_id with a full URL example, limit with min/max/default, and offset with default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 tool gets template instances belonging to an input template ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cedar_template, which likely retrieves the template definition itself, and search-oriented tools.

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 provides clear context: use this to fetch template instances for a given template. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that no exclusions are necessary given the sibling tool names.

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