get_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full details including tools and system prompt, indicating it is a read operation with no side effects. Additional details like error handling or permissions are absent, but the description is adequate for a simple get.

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 two lines plus an 'Args:' block, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a simple get operation with one parameter, the description covers the essentials. It mentions what is returned (full details including tools and system prompt), compensating for the lack of an output schema. No critical gaps.

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 only parameter, agent_id, has no description in the schema (0% coverage). However, the description adds: 'The agent's UUID (from list_agents or create_agent),' which clarifies its type and source, adding value beyond the schema.

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 states 'Get full details of a single agent including its tools and system prompt,' clearly indicating the verb and resource, and specifies what details are included. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_agents (list) and update_agent (modify).

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 use when full details of a specific agent are needed and provides context for the agent_id source ('from list_agents or create_agent'). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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