getAgent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description goes beyond this by noting the response includes a `version_history_enabled` boolean and linking to docs. However, it does not discuss error behavior, response structure beyond that one field, or any other behavioral nuances, so the added value is moderate.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It then adds a useful note about a response field and a docs link. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter fully documented and read-only annotations provided. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally convey the response shape; it mentions `version_history_enabled` but does not outline the complete agent object or error cases. Given the low complexity, the description is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 fully covers the single parameter `agent_id` with type, required flag, and a description ('The ID of the agent'). The tool description merely restates 'by ID' without adding details about the ID's source, format, or constraints. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific agent by ID.' This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like listAgents (list all), updateAgent, and deleteAgent. It also adds a specific response detail (version_history_enabled), further clarifying its behavior.

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 provides clear context: it is used to retrieve details for a single agent given its ID, implicitly distinguishing it from listAgents. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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