get_friend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior ('Returns null if the agent hasn't friended them') and hints at the data fields returned. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the fetch semantics and null condition are valuable transparency for an agent.

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 action and parameter are front-loaded, followed by return behavior and a context for use. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior, return value edge case, and typical use case. It does not discuss errors or auth, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the existing output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the parameter is a bot_id identifying a specific friend, and the null behavior implies the ID must correspond to an already-friended agent. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema field name.

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 ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('one friend') and the identifying key ('bot_id'), making it unambiguous what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from list_friends by emphasizing 'one' friend.

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 phrase 'Useful when the LLM needs the friend's memory blob, note, or cached agent_card' gives a concrete condition for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the single-friend focus clearly implies it is for targeted retrieval rather than listing.

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