Get an agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about the breadth of returned data (hardware, OS, disks, battery, IP/MAC, last reboot), but says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid agentId or any permission requirements. Modest added value over annotations.

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?

A single short clause with no filler, front-loading the returned content. The trailing ellipsis is slightly sloppy and signals the field list is non-exhaustive, but there is no padding to cut.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so at a useful high level by naming concrete field categories. It stops short of stating that it returns a single record keyed by agentId or how it behaves on a nonexistent ID, but for a one-parameter getter this is largely adequate.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents agentId as the required positive integer identifier. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond that, so the 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 names the resource ('agent record') and enumerates what it contains, so the subject is clear. However, it never states a verb or that it retrieves a single agent by ID, and it offers no differentiation from close siblings like get_agent_by_machine or get_agent_patches. Purpose is inferable but not stated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_agents, find_agents, or get_agent_by_machine. The description is a pure content list with no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving routing entirely to the agent's inference from the name.

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