agent_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses returned content (lifecycle state, detected interactions) and disambiguates the requiresDecision field's semantics, but says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, side effects, or permissions required.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a targeted clarification of requiresDecision. No filler, though the second sentence is dense.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does reasonable work by naming the returned fields and explaining the requiresDecision semantics. It is adequate for a single-parameter read tool, though it could note the read-only nature.

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?

Only one parameter (agentId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the ID format and its origin from agent_start. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (one MCP-managed Herdr agent) plus the scope of what is returned (lifecycle state, detected interactions). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like agent_read or agent_capabilities, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 clarifies that requiresDecision obligates the caller to apply its delegation policy, which is genuinely useful context, but it never states when to call agent_get versus agent_read or agent_capabilities. Usage is only implied.

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