agent_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the lookup key can be either a name or a pane id, which is real context, but says nothing about not-found behavior or what a retrieved agent record contains.

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 lookup key options come after the verb resource and nothing is redundant.

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 a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description need not explain safety or return shape, and it does cover the identifier forms. Only the failure mode (target not found / ambiguous name vs pane id) is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a simple lookup.

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 0% — the lone 'target' parameter has no description in the schema — but the description compensates by specifying both accepted identifier forms (unique agent name or hosting pane id). That is the key semantic detail an agent needs to pass the argument correctly.

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'), and the singular 'one agent' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling agent_list. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by unique name or hosting pane id' — an agent can infer this is a fallback/alternative to enumerating with agent_list. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or sibling routing is stated.

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