Get Instance Overrides

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming it is a read operation. It adds the behavioral context that the data is meant for later application. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., behavior when nodeId is invalid or missing). Given the annotations already cover the core safety trait, the description adds moderate value.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., hinting at output format or error behavior) without adding verbosity. Overall, it is well-structured for its length.

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 tool has a low-complexity input (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description sufficiently covers the tool's role within the workflow (reading overrides for later application). It is complete for typical usage, though a brief note on the return format would enhance completeness.

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 provides a description for the only parameter (nodeId) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema already states. Thus, it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 ('Read the override properties') and the resource ('from a source instance'). It also indicates the purpose ('to later apply them to other instances'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'instance_set_overrides'. The verb 'Read' combined with 'override properties' is specific and 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 implies when to use this tool: before applying overrides to other instances. It mentions 'to later apply them', which hints at the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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