get_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the developer key requirement and lists the specific fields returned, giving the agent a good sense of behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or error conditions, but 'Get' and the shown fields imply a safe read.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and zero wasted words. The list of fields is compact and informative.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned fields and auth requirement. It lacks explicit read-only confirmation or error cases, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the agent_id parameter is already described in the schema (numeric ID from create_agent/list_agents). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description states 'Get one agent's full detail' with a specific list of returned fields (status, privyWalletAddress, creditUsed, etc.), clearly identifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from list_agents by focusing on a single agent's detailed data.

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 context is clear: use this when you need a single agent's detailed snapshot. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection among many sibling tools.

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