get_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by noting that agent-scoped API keys may only read their own agent. This is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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?

Two efficient sentences. The first states the core action, the second provides additional context. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action, parameter, and a security nuance. However, it doesn't describe the return format, which could be inferred from context but is a minor gap.

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 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter ('Agent ID to fetch'). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond 'by ID' and what the schema already says, so a baseline score 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?

The description explicitly says 'Fetch a single agent by ID', a specific verb+resource. It also clarifies what an agent represents (AI assistant, human, shared resource), distinguishing it from list_agents and create_agent. This is clear and precise.

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 implies usage for fetching a single agent by ID and adds a constraint about scoped API keys. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for multiple agents use list_agents). That said, the context is adequate for an agent to decide.

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