venom_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the response contains no secrets and no prompt text, and implies a read-only inspection operation, but it does not cover permissions, side effects, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives concise argument notes. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter retrieval tool, with no redundant sentences, though the formatting is slightly awkward.

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 the low complexity, output schema presence, and only two simple parameters, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns and how to supply each argument, leaving only sibling routing guidance unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that agent_id accepts an id, name, or key from venom_inventory, and that workspace is a Venom workspace folder. This meaningfully expands on the bare schema titles.

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 states a specific resource and scope: 'One agent in detail' with its tools, parameters, risk classes, triggers, guard status and agent key. This clearly distinguishes it from the broader venom_inventory sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'One agent in detail' and by noting agent_id comes 'from venom_inventory', which suggests a follow-up call after inventory. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternative for other agent-related needs.

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