Get Instance Overrides

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds scoping ('from a source instance') and purpose ('to later apply them'), which is useful but not rich. It does not disclose additional behaviors like return format or side effects, but the output schema and readOnlyHint mitigate the need.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Read'. No wasted words; every element adds value.

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 tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, readOnly and openWorld hints, and an output schema, the description provides enough context. It explains the tool's purpose and the source instance, while the structured fields handle return values and parameter details.

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 a full description for nodeId ('The ID of the component instance to get overrides from'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description's 'source instance' echoes the schema without adding significant new meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('override properties from a source instance'), clearly distinguishing it from generic read tools like node_info and its counterpart instance_set_overrides. The stated purpose ('to later apply them to other instances') adds context that reinforces the tool's role in copying overrides.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when you need to read override properties from a source instance to apply elsewhere. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and the sibling tool instance_set_overrides is implicitly contrasted.

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