agent_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses acceptance of both internal a_id and GUI-visible a_crc (8-char hex), which is useful. However, it does not mention that the tool is read-only, what 'detailed information' includes, or error cases like invalid IDs.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose and parameter format without any unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple info retrieval tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential use case. It could mention that the agent must exist or what happens on invalid IDs, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for extensive return description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by explaining the parameter 'agent_id' can be an internal a_id or an 8-char hex a_crc. This clarifies the accepted formats beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific agent by ID', specifying both the action and the resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'list_agents' by focusing on a single agent and mentions two accepted ID formats, making the tool's specificity clear.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'list_agents' or 'kill_agent'. The context supports usage by needing an agent ID, but no guidance on exclusion or when-not-to-use is provided.

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