instruction_definitions_get_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context by noting the return value includes the full schema and parameters needed. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether it can return null/error for missing IDs, or any authentication requirements.

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 a single focused sentence that states the action, the resource, the lookup key, and a key behavioral detail about the return value. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description is adequately complete: it names the resource, the identifier, and the important return detail that the full schema is included. It could mention not-found behavior or how to route to sibling lookup tools, but given the low complexity and full schema coverage, these are minor gaps.

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%, and the only parameter 'id' is already described as 'Integer ID'. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic detail such as where the ID comes from or how it should be formatted, so the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('Instruction Definition'), and the lookup key ('by its integer ID'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling operations like instruction_definitions_list, instruction_definitions_search, and instruction_definitions_get_by_name.

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 that this tool is appropriate when an integer ID is already known, and the sibling instruction_definitions_get_by_name exists as an alternative for name-based lookup. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the alternatives or mention searching/list as a way to obtain an ID.

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