agent_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing the payload contents (identity/status fields plus a fixed 24 h alert window), which matters because there is no output schema, but it omits what happens when the agent is unknown, whether the 24 h window is configurable, and any auth requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the concrete fields returned. No filler, though the parenthetical field list makes it slightly dense rather than skimmable.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials. It stops short of describing the alert-summary contents (counts? severities?) that an agent would need to interpret the response, which is the main remaining gap.

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%: both `agent` (name or id) and the `env` enum are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 names a specific resource (an agent) and enumerates exactly what comes back: status, version, OS, last keepalive, plus a 24 h alert summary. That is far more informative than a restatement of the name, and it implicitly separates this lookup from alert-search siblings, though it never names an alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as ip_profile, vulnerabilities, or search_alerts even though those overlap in scope. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and the field list.

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