Read an instance's common properties and attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real non-obvious behavior: each property is pcall-read independently so non-existent properties are omitted rather than failing the call, and an unresolvable path returns { error }. It also notes cost=medium. Strong, though it does not discuss the 'core set' selection criteria.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then a concrete example, then the return contract. The trailing boilerplate block ('Phase: observe; cost=medium; idempotency=read-only', 'On failure: inspect tool-schema...') partially restates annotation data but is compact and scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself: { path, fullName, className, properties, attributes }, per-property { type, value }, and the { error } case. Combined with prerequisites and the sibling pointer, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a redundant example ('game.Workspace.Part') that duplicates the schema's own 'game.Players.LocalPlayer.PlayerGui' example, contributing no new semantics.

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 (resolve + read) and resource (a single instance's core properties and attributes), with a concrete dotted-path example. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get-instance-tree, which handles the many-instance case, so an agent can select correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('For listing many instances use get-instance-tree instead') and gives prerequisites ('Requires: active-client, resolved-target'). The single-instance vs. many-instance boundary is stated outright, leaving nothing to inference.

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