get_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, but the description does not explain what kind of details are returned, error behavior for a nonexistent ID, or any access requirements. It is adequate but not rich, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the purpose in minimal words. Every element is useful, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple single-parameter getter.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only gap is that 'details' is vague and does not specify the return representation, but for a get-by-ID operation this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 already provides 100% coverage, including the source of the ID (from list_agents or create_agent). The description merely restates 'by its ID' without adding additional meaning. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not go beyond it.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('voice AI agent'), and the distinguishing qualifier ('by its ID'). This sharply differentiates it from list_agents and the other sibling tools, leaving no ambiguity about which operation is being exposed.

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 when to use this tool: when you already know a specific agent ID and want its details, as opposed to listing agents or performing mutations. The schema's parameter description further reinforces this by noting the ID comes from list_agents or create_agent. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or directly name alternative tools.

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