get_instance_overrides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool operates on a 'selected component instance' or an explicitly provided nodeId, which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens if no instance is selected, whether overrides are returned recursively, or any side effects (though it's a read operation). The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise sentences packed with relevant information. There is no fluff; every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and why it matters. Excellent front-loading of the core purpose.

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-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose, the input behavior, and the downstream use case. A slightly richer description of return format or error conditions could earn a 5, but overall it is comprehensive enough.

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 coverage is 100%, with the 'nodeId' parameter fully described in the schema. The description reaffirms the optionality and selection fallback but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get all override properties from a selected component instance.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_instance_overrides' (which writes overrides). The additional sentence about applying overrides to other instances clarifies the broader context.

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 a clear use case: reading overrides to apply them elsewhere. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but it effectively contrasts with the sibling 'set_instance_overrides' by focusing on 'get.' The phrase 'These overrides can be applied to other instances' hints at a typical workflow, providing some usage guidance.

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