instance_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden, but it does add real behavioral value: it explains that identifier resolution is smart and that an ambiguous name is refused rather than guessed. It does not cover auth requirements, error behavior beyond ambiguity, or how return data is shaped (though an output schema exists).

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 purpose, then the resolution caveat, then structured Args/Returns blocks. The Returns section partly duplicates the output schema, but the overall shape is efficient and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema, this covers the main ambiguity (what identifier to pass, and ambiguity handling). An agent has enough to call it correctly; missing only peripheral details like permissions or error modes.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema coverage, the schema only says 'string'; the description adds that instance_id accepts an instance ID, label, or hostname, which is meaningfully more than the schema conveys. It does not specify format examples, but the accepted forms are enumerated.

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 (get) and resource (a single instance) plus the depth of detail returned. It does not name instance_list as the sibling alternative for listing, but 'single instance' vs. the sibling's list scope is inferable from the name/description.

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?

Usage is implied: call it when you need one instance's details and have an identifier. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over instance_list or instance_get_bandwidth, nor any prerequisite/permission guidance.

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