cigchat_flow_ai_agent_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the HTTP method (POST) and the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which is useful. However, it does not describe return format, potential side effects, or error behavior, and 'and more' is vague about the actual payload structure.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, examples of contents, endpoint, and auth requirement. There is no repetition of schema information and no filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With only one parameter, a well-documented schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and access requirements. However, 'and more' leaves the full return payload unspecified, and without an output schema, a slightly more detailed enumeration of returned fields would increase completeness.

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, ai_agent_ns, is fully documented in the input schema (namespace id or exact name, server resolves automatically, example provided). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with the specific verb 'View' and clearly identifies the resource: 'Ai Agent details'. It enumerates what is included (description, prompts, ai function list) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like cigchat_flow_ai_agents (list agents) and cigchat_flow_ai_task_info (task details) by focusing on a single agent's full detail set.

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 tool's purpose implies usage—'View Ai Agent details' suggests it is for retrieving agent information—but there is no explicit instruction on when to use this versus other agent-related tools, nor any exclusion criteria. The scope requirement is noted, but no alternatives or context are provided.

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