instance_get_bandwidth

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a 'Get' (read-only) and returns 'bandwidth usage information,' but it does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what exactly constitutes the return beyond vague phrasing. The return details are left to the output schema, which is structured, but the description adds little behavioral context.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured. It leads with the purpose, then provides a clear Args section explaining the parameter, and a Returns section outlining the output. Every sentence earns its place—there is no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded. The format is scannable and efficient.

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 read operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clarifies the parameter format and indicates the return type. However, it omits any mention of time ranges, units, or whether the bandwidth is for a specific period, which might be relevant. But since the output schema likely details the structure, this is a minor gap. The description does not address error conditions or prerequisites, but those are not critical for this basic getter.

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 only declares instance_id as a string, but the description significantly enriches its semantics by stating it can be 'the instance ID, label, or hostname' and provides concrete examples. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and helps the agent understand acceptable formats, which is especially important given the 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates well for the schema's lack of detail.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get bandwidth usage statistics for an instance.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope is unambiguous—it targets instances, distinguishing it from the sibling bare_metal_get_bare_metal_bandwidth without needing to name it. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternatives like bare_metal_get_bare_metal_bandwidth. The only hint is the tool name itself, which is not sufficient for routing an agent. No usage conditions or prerequisites are described.

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