ami_get_instructions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output format (markdown), the content (call order and telemetry acquisition), and the tool's role as the initial instruction provider. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only/idempotent, but the described behavior makes that implicit; no contradictory annotations exist.

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?

Three short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second and third sentences earn their place by providing conditional usage and an exclusion. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description is self-sufficient for an optional one-parameter read tool. It tells the agent what the tool returns, when to call it (and when not to), and how the runtime parameter affects the content. With no output schema needed for a markdown-returning tool, no essential information is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the runtime parameter by saying the procedure varies by runtime ('for your runtime, how telemetry is obtained') but does not add concrete parameter-level syntax beyond the enum and default already in the schema.

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 clear verb ('Return'), resource ('AMI survey procedure'), and format ('as markdown'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly positioning it as the entry point ('Call this FIRST') for the survey workflow, distinguishing it from the other ami_* tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('if your harness has no skill mechanism that already gave you the procedure') and when-not-to-use ('Claude Code agents already have it as a skill and do not need this'), and even names the alternative mechanism (a skill). Nothing is left to inference.

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