teramind_get_agent

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool omits compensation and LDAP attribute data, which is a meaningful field-level restriction. However, it does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, or return shape, so transparency is only partial.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the core purpose is first, the prerequisite second, and the field restriction third. Every sentence contributes essential information, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 getter, the description covers the required input, the prerequisite source, and a key data limitation. It is reasonably complete even without an output schema, though a brief note on what the response contains or whether it can fail would have made it fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents the agent_id parameter adequately. The description reinforces that the ID comes from teramind_list_agents, which adds useful provenance context, but it does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('single monitored agent (user)'), and the scope ('full detail' for one agent). It is immediately distinguishable from the list-oriented sibling teramind_list_agents and the other get_* tools by naming the exact resource type.

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 explicitly tells the agent that a prerequisite agent ID must come from teramind_list_agents, which is clear and actionable. It also routes around a known limitation by referencing the same field restriction as teramind_list_agents, though it does not explicitly contrast when to use this over other tools.

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