cloud_instance_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the key auto-detection behavior for Aliyun (ECS/SWAS) and Tencent (CVM/Lighthouse), which is valuable. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid IDs, or any response characteristics, leaving gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then provides the provider-specific nuance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool, the description is reasonably complete, but the lack of an output schema means the agent cannot know what 'detailed information' will contain. Additionally, no error or permission context is provided, and with no annotations, the description could do more to round out the picture.

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 100% coverage with descriptions and an enum for provider, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal direct parameter detail, though the auto-detection hint implies the instanceId can be any supported type. This is sufficient but not compensatory.

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 verb ('获取') and resource ('指定云实例的详细信息'), and adds the cross-provider auto-detection nuance, which distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like cloud_list_instances. It 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 usage context: given a specific instance ID and provider, it retrieves details and auto-detects the instance type. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like server_info or cloud_list_instances, nor any exclusions or conditions.

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