get_ai_agent

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already indicating a safe, read-only operation, the description adds the useful detail that related ACLs are included. However, it does not disclose any further behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, response size, or whether ACLs are embedded or separate, so the added transparency is minimal.

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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and resource immediately, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what will be returned (definition + ACLs). It does not explain return formats or edge cases, but the tool's simplicity and annotations make this acceptable.

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 schema covers the single sys_id parameter with a clear description ('System ID of the AI agent'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds nothing beyond this, so it does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource as 'an AI agent definition and its related ACLs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ai_agents and create_ai_agent, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 for retrieving a single AI agent by sys_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of list_ai_agents for listing or any exclusions, leaving the context to be inferred from the tool name and sibling set.

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