agent_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a genuinely important trait: out-of-scope agents return NOT_FOUND, indistinguishable from a missing id. That prevents an agent from misreading a permission failure as non-existence. It does not state read-only status or return shape, but the output schema covers the latter.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action leads and the surprising scoping caveat follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema, the description covers the one non-obvious failure mode an agent must know. Return values are handled by the output schema, so nothing critical is missing, though read-only confirmation is absent.

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 single agent_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including 'REQUIRED'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, naming, or resolution semantics beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return one agent's details') and names a key returned field (last_seen_at), which is crisper than the bare name. It never explicitly contrasts with agent_list or agent_whoami, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than agent_list, agent_whoami, or agent_register. The only qualifying information is a behavioral scoping caveat, not usage guidance.

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