aap_get_instance_capacity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it returns 'JSON with capacity, consumed capacity, running jobs.' This provides useful behavioral context about the return value without contradicting annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clean Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 present, the description covers the target and the return contents (capacity, consumed capacity, running jobs). It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero meaningful description coverage; the description simply repeats 'Instance ID' without adding semantics. It does not explain how to identify the node or any relationships to other resources, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states 'Get capacity and workload details for a specific AAP controller node,' clearly specifying the action (get), the resource (capacity/workload details), and the scope (a specific node). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'aap_list_instances' or 'aap_get_cluster_status'.

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 implies usage for a specific node's capacity details, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for cluster-level capacity). Slight gap in exclusions.

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