get_agent_route

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as scope, permissions, or what the route represents.

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 only two words, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It lacks the front-loaded useful information an agent needs to distinguish and invoke the tool confidently.

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 tool taking agent_id plus optional branch_id and version_id, the description does not explain what is being retrieved or how branch and version affect the result. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description remains inadequate for an agent to understand the operation's purpose.

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 agent_id, branch_id, and version_id. The description adds no parameter meaning, but with high schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Get Agent" essentially restates the tool name and title rather than stating what resource is retrieved or what "route" means. It provides no differentiation from the many sibling tools such as get_agents_route, get_agent_summaries_route, or get_branch_route.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives exist. It is not misleading, but it supplies no usage context at all.

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