paperclip_get_agent

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing return fields (Agent object with specific properties) and error handling (401, 404). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the mutation risk is known, but the description enriches behavioral context.

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 concise, well-organized with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff. The structure aids quick parsing by an AI agent.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, return fields, usage context, and error handling. Despite the absence of an output schema, the description lists the returned fields (id, name, urlKey, etc.) which compensates. For a simple get tool, this is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds a concrete example for agentId ('agt_abc123') and implies the response_format via the 'Returns' section mentioning format. While it doesn't elaborate on response_format, the schema is clear with enum and default. The example adds moderate value.

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 'Get full details for a single agent by UUID', specifying a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like paperclip_list_agents which lists agents, and paperclip_update_agent which modifies. The title annotation 'Get agent by ID' reinforces this.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when: reading an agent's current config before updating it or checking its heartbeat settings' and 'Don't use when: you need a list of agents — use paperclip_list_agents to discover IDs first'. Error handling hints also guide when to use alternative tools.

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