get_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Gets') and returns configuration details, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guideline. Every word earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. The structure efficiently communicates essential information in a minimal format.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavior, parameter meaning, return format, or error conditions. For a tool that retrieves configuration data, more context is needed to ensure reliable agent invocation.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't mention the 'agent_id' parameter at all, failing to compensate for the low coverage. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the description implies a specific agent is needed but doesn't explain what 'agent_id' represents or its format, leaving minimal added value.

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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('agent details'), specifying it returns 'agent configuration'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_agents' by focusing on a single agent, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_agent' or others. The purpose is specific and actionable, though sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 includes a 'Use when' clause ('viewing specific agent settings and capabilities'), providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It implies usage for detailed inspection rather than listing, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'list_agents' for broader queries. The guidance is helpful but lacks exclusions or direct sibling comparisons.

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