instructions_get_responses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses local-data behavior and pagination support. It does not describe response format, ordering, failure behavior, or side effects, though 'Get' suggests a read-only operation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by key modifiers. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 read-oriented tool with full parameter documentation, the description covers the main behavioral options and pagination. It lacks an output schema and does not describe the response shape, but for the purpose of selecting and invoking the tool, the description is largely sufficient.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description mostly restates what the schema says about local, start, and pageSize without adding meaningful new semantics beyond that.

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 the actual responses/results from devices for an instruction.' It clearly names what is retrieved and for what entity. The word 'actual' distinguishes it from sibling aggregate tools like instructions_get_responses_aggregate.

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 contextual hints, such as 'local=true returns data stored locally' and pagination support, which imply how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like instructions_get_responses_aggregate or instructions_get_responding_devices, nor does it give exclusions.

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