get_instance

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned field groups, which is genuinely useful, but leaves 'curated properties' undefined and doesn't say whether children are direct-only or recursive, nor how missing instances are reported.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler – the return payload is front-loaded and the parameter guidance follows immediately. Nothing repeats the schema verbatim or wastes tokens.

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 and no annotations, the description is the only source of truth for return shape, and it only sketches it. 'Curated properties' and children depth are the two ambiguities an agent would hit when interpreting results.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it gives the path format with a concrete example ('Workspace/Baseplate') and explains that properties is an optional comma-separated list of property names. It stops short of saying what an empty properties value (the schema default) yields.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a precise resource ('one instance') and an enumeration of what comes back (class, curated properties, attributes, children). This contrasts implicitly with siblings like get_tree (whole tree) and search_instances (query-based), though it never names them.

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 only implied by the 'one instance' scoping and the path example – an agent can infer this is for a known path rather than discovery. No explicit statement of when to prefer search_instances or get_tree instead, and no mention of what happens for an invalid or nonexistent path.

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