Instrument Show

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read ("Show") but discloses nothing else: no permissions, no side effects, no note about what happens when the track has no instrument. The full/default note is parameter behavior, not behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Terse to the point of under-specification, but efficient as written.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format detail is not required. For a simple read tool that is adequate, but with 0% param coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the two required parameters unexplained.

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, yet it only addresses one of three parameters (full=True includes all defaults). The required project and track parameters are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ("Show") and resource ("a track's instrument JSON"), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutators like instrument_set and from instrument_help/instrument_fit. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the noun scope communicates the read purpose unambiguously.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives. With siblings like instrument_set, instrument_help, and instrument_fit present, the agent gets no signal about when viewing raw instrument JSON is the right call versus editing or getting help.

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