Get instance manager

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, what happens if the name is not found, authorization requirements, or the shape of the returned object. The verb 'get' is the only behavioral signal.

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 sentence with no filler. Every word is necessary and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple get-by-name tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (the named instance manager). It omits error/edge-case details, but these are less critical for a basic retrieval operation.

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 input schema only provides a string type for 'name'. The description adds meaning by explicitly saying the resource is retrieved 'by name', which is critical because schema description coverage is 0%. It maps the single parameter to the tool's purpose effectively.

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 states a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (instance manager), and a scoping constraint (single, by name). This distinguishes it from the sibling instancemanager_list, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'by name' implies it should be used when a known instance manager identifier is available, but it does not route the agent away from sibling tools.

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