caldera_get_agent

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear full burden. It mentions returning a JSON string with alive status, but does not disclose error conditions, authentication needs, or side effects. For a read-only operation, minimal transparency is shown.

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: one sentence for purpose, then structured args and returns. Front-loaded with key information, no unnecessary words.

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 tool with one parameter and existing output schema, the description covers the core functionality, parameter meaning, and return type. Minor missing details like error handling or confirmation that agent might not exist, but overall complete enough.

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 only parameter 'paw' is thoroughly explained: 'The agent's PAW (unique identifier assigned by Caldera).' This adds value beyond the schema, which has no description and 0% coverage.

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 specific agent by its PAW identifier.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (agent details), and distinguishes from sibling tools like caldera_list_agents (which lists all agents).

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 when you have a specific paw, but does not explicitly state when to use or alternatives. No 'when not to use' or comparison to other get/list tools.

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