describe_agent

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

No annotations provided, so the description must communicate behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not disclose output format, data freshness, or any side effects. It is adequate but minimal for a read tool.

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?

Single sentence, 14 words, front-loaded with the core action. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'detailed metadata' includes. It does not elaborate on return structure (e.g., 'name, description, parameters'). It is minimally complete for a simple getter but lacks specificity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already mentions ID or slug. The tool description adds no new semantic meaning beyond confirming that both ID and slug are accepted. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed metadata, input fields, and output fields for a specific agent'. It specifies the identifier method ('by its ID or slug') and the scope ('specific agent'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'invoke_agent' or 'list_agent_memories'.

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 usage (when you need agent details), but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., 'openclaw_get_details' for a different system). No explicit guidance on prerequisites or context.

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