agent_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry transparency. It states 'full details' but does not specify what fields are returned, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or constraints beyond the required agent_id. The example helps slightly but lacks comprehensive disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes an example. Every word is necessary; no 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?

Given the simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks details on the output structure. An agent cannot determine what 'full details' entails without additional context. While sibling tools exist, the description does not bridge the 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?

The schema describes the single parameter with 'The agent's id / GitHub slug'. The description adds a concrete example ('e.g. 'elizaOS/eliza''), providing meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves 'full details for one agent' by agent_id, with a concrete example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_agent' (likely search) and 'top_agents' (likely listing).

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 for getting details of a known agent by ID, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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