get_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get full details' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error handling, response format, or any additional behavioral traits. Minimal disclosure beyond the tool's name.

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, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-id tool and front-loads the core purpose clearly. Excellent conciseness.

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 low-complexity read tool, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the action and resource, but lacks explicit mention of return value shape (no output schema), prerequisites, or edge cases. 'Full details' is vague and could benefit from examples or a note that all agent fields are returned. Overall, a basic but functional description with clear gaps.

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 50% (workspace_id is described, id is not). The description does not explain the meaning or usage of either parameter, nor does it compensate for the missing id description. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and the schema's partial description.

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 'Get full details of one agent' clearly states the verb (get), resource (agent), and scope (one). It distinguishes from list_agents by implying singular access, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_agents, or on prerequisites such as the agent existing. The description simply states what it does without context on selection.

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