instances_get_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get details' and omits any side effects, authentication, rate limits, or read-only nature. The minimal description provides little transparency beyond the action itself.

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?

Description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word serves a purpose, making it both concise and clear.

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 operation with two parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It tells what the tool does but lacks details about return value structure, error conditions, or when to use it in a workflow. The existence of the output schema compensates somewhat.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'by ID' which matches the server_id parameter but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. No extra semantics for zone or usage details.

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 action (get) and the resource (details of a single compute instance by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like instances_create_server and instances_list_servers.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for retrieving a specific server by ID, nor does it specify any prerequisites or typical usage context.

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