instruction_definitions_get_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses exact-match lookup semantics, but it does not mention what happens when no definition matches, whether matching is case-sensitive, or what the response contains beyond implying definitionId and parameter schema.

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 sentences, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by connecting the tool to a concrete workflow step.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides enough workflow context: call it before sending an instruction, and use the result to obtain the definitionId and parameter schema. The main gap is not-found/error behavior, which would strengthen completeness.

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 input schema provides only 'name' as a string with no description, so the description must compensate. 'Exact name' adds meaningful semantics by telling the agent the value must be the full exact name rather than a partial or fuzzy match, though it stops short of specifying format or case-sensitivity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get an Instruction Definition by its exact name.' The 'exact name' qualifier clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools instruction_definitions_list, instruction_definitions_search, and instruction_definitions_get_by_id.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use this to find the definitionId and parameter schema before sending an instruction.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use them, but 'by its exact name' implies the routing decision versus by-ID or search-based retrieval.

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