Get Agent

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds genuine behavioral value beyond annotations by disclosing a session-side side effect: 'Also sets this agent as the session's current agent context (no server-side change)' — important because readOnlyHint would otherwise imply zero state change. It also surfaces auth failure (401/403) and 404 semantics, enriching the agent's expectations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, config contents, session side effect, id source, auth requirements, and error conditions. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and dense supporting details follow without 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?

For a read-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers the config fields returned (prompt, LLM, RAG settings, visibility), the side effect, prerequisites, auth, and error cases. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters (agentId, agentIdOrAddress) are already described in the schema, including 'Get it from ethora-agents-list-v2.' The description's mention of sourcing ids from list/create adds only marginal reinforcement over what the schema states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Fetch one reusable saved agent's full config by id' and enumerates the config contents (prompt, LLM, RAG settings, visibility). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling set (list, create, update, delete) since it is the only read-by-id operation.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites — 'Requires: an agent id or address from ethora-agents-list-v2 or ethora-agents-create-v2' — plus the auth state (app-token after ethora-app-select + ethora-auth-use-app) and expected error codes. It does not explicitly name when NOT to use it or route to a sibling alternative for the same job, which prevents a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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