efm_get_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It implies a read-only lookup and details the returned fields, but it does not mention failure modes, permissions, or confirmation that no side effects occur. For a get-type tool this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the intended use case. No filler words or redundancy.

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 output schema exists, so return structure is well-covered. The description clarifies the tool scope, content, and a key use-case, which is sufficient for a simple single-parameter getter. It does not address error cases, but that is a minor omission for such a routine read operation.

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 only hints that agent_id identifies the target through 'one agent,' but does not explain how to obtain an agent_id, its uniqueness, or any value constraints. The schema only provides the type string, leaving the parameter mostly unexplained.

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?

States a specific retrieval operation for one agent, enumerating the returned content (class, device/host, manifest hash, heartbeat/status). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like efm_list_agents (plural) and efm_get_agent_class (only class) by its scope and content.

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?

Provides a concrete use: to confirm which manifest an agent actually reports. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it misses the full when-not guidance required for a 5, but the context is clear.

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