get_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the prompt resolution hierarchy, that ownerID is read-only and equals workspaceId, and the shape of the returned demo URLs. It does not mention error/not-found behavior for an invalid agentId.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then dense but useful resolution rules and anti-hallucination constraints. Every sentence carries information; the URL-format aside is slightly compressed and would read better as its own clause, but nothing is wasted.

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, the description does the work of explaining key return fields (instructions location, ownerID, prototypeUrl/tryItUrl) and how to present them. It is nearly complete; only error behavior and the relationship to sibling retrieval tools is left out.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description does not add anything about agentId itself (format, where to obtain it); its detail is about response fields such as ownerID rather than input semantics.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve details of a specific Convocore agent.' Sibling tools like list_agents and search_agents are never named, so the agent must infer that this is the single-record fetch rather than a listing/search tool.

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 gives operational guidance on how to interpret the result (read instructions from nodes[0].instructions, fall back to legacy vg_instructions, share prototypeUrl with the user, never invent /agents/ links) but never states when to choose this over list_agents, search_agents, or get_agent_usage. Usage is implied rather than scoped.

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