get_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the response's broad coverage (brain, voice, transcriber, etc.) and adds a valuable behavioral fact: the response structure matches update_agent's config parameter, enabling a read-modify-write cycle. It stops short of explicitly stating 'read-only, no side effects,' but the verb and context strongly imply it.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, field coverage, usage guidance, and schema compatibility. The field list is slightly verbose but informative. Overall it is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids fluff.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and how its output integrates with update_agent. An output schema exists, so return format details are handled elsewhere. For a single-parameter read tool, this description is comprehensive and leaves little to guess.

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 (agent_id) exists, and the description implies its meaning by saying 'a specific agent,' but does not explain what the ID is or how to obtain it. Since the schema provides no description either, the description offers minimal compensation. The parameter is simple enough that meaning is inferable, but not fully explicit.

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 opens with 'Get the complete configuration of a specific agent,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_agents (which lists) and update_agent (which modifies) by emphasizing the complete configuration and full behavioral picture.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this before calling update_agent to understand current state, or to inspect how an agent is configured for debugging call quality issues.' This names concrete scenarios and creates a workflow with update_agent, making the when-to-use unambiguous.

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