ragflow_get_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the notion that the graph is returned conditionally; it says nothing about failure modes (missing agent), permissions, or the cost of the large DSL payload that the schema warns about.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary resource is stated first and the optional DSL clause trails it appropriately. Slightly awkward phrasing ('and its graph (DSL) on request') is the only minor cost.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with full schema coverage, the description leaves nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly, though it could have flagged that a missing agent_id yields an error.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (agent_id, include_dsl) are already documented in the schema, including the 'can be large' caveat. The description's 'on request' for the DSL duplicates rather than extends that, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one agent's settings, and its graph (DSL)'), which clearly separates it from list_agents, create_agent, and update_agent. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'on request' hints that the DSL payload is opt-in, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as ragflow_list_agents for enumeration.

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