get_agent_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the read-only nature of the operation ('Get') without adding context such as what 'detailed information' includes, potential error cases, authentication requirements, or whether the data includes configuration, status, or metadata. This adds little beyond the tool name.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key information and is efficiently structured, earning every word.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully inform an agent. It does not specify what 'detailed information' covers, how it compares to get_agent_summary, or what kind of response to expect. This lack of completeness could lead to incorrect tool selection or usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (agent_id), which is already described as 'The ID of the agent (instanceId)'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific Telegraf agent'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_agents (which returns all agents) and get_agent_summary (which likely returns a summary). The focus on a specific agent is explicit.

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 the tool is used when detailed information for one agent is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_agent_summary or other alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions. Usage context is only implied by the phrase 'a specific agent'.

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