get_agent

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by naming the required `users:manage` permission and the underlying REST endpoint, but it says nothing about what is returned, behavior when the id does not exist, or whether deleted/inactive agents are returned.

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?

Four short lines with the endpoint and permission front-loaded; nothing is padded. The trailing "Tags: Agents" line is catalog metadata with no decision value, which is the only waste.

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 definition covers auth and routing but leaves the response shape entirely unspecified. Since no output schema exists, a brief note on returned fields or not-found behavior would materially improve it.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents `id`. The description's `{id}` in the path template confirms it is a path parameter but adds no format, constraint, or example beyond that.

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?

"Get Agent" alone restates the tool name, but the appended `GET /api/v1/agents/{id}` confirms this is a single-agent fetch keyed by id, implicitly distinguishing it from the list-style `get_agents`. It never explicitly contrasts with close siblings such as `get_current_agent`, so the agent must infer the distinction from the path template.

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 only guidance is the `users:manage` permission requirement; there is no statement of when to call this versus `get_current_agent` or `get_agents`. An agent knowing an id is a prerequisite, but that is left implicit rather than stated.

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