qobrix_get_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the return shape ('Returns { data: { id, ref, ... } }'), lists verified include options, and explains the agent's relationships (e.g., parent brokerage). It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but 'Get' implies a non-mutating operation. Lacks error/rate-limit details, but the provided context is substantial.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds useful information: purpose, return shape, include options, and a detailed usage pattern. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the pattern section is a structured list that is easy to scan. Slight redundancy in the pattern but overall efficient.

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 single-resource fetch with only two parameters, the description is remarkably complete: it covers return format, expand options, and provides a full '360°' workflow with sibling tools. Even without an output schema, an agent can reasonably understand what to expect and how to integrate this call.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds value by elaborating the 'include' options (verified list) and showing how the UUID is used in related tool calls (e.g., agent == '<uuid>'). This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions, enhancing understanding of parameter usage.

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 'Get a single agent by UUID', specifying the exact resource and operation. It differentiates from sibling tools like qobrix_list_agents and qobrix_search_agents by emphasizing single-agent retrieval by UUID, and from qobrix_get_contact by noting this returns a RESO Member/ListAgent.

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 provides strong usage guidance: it says to resolve an agent from a listing or lead, and offers an 'Agent 360° pattern' with explicit tool names and filter examples (e.g., qobrix_search_properties with agent == '<uuid>'). This implicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives, making it highly informative.

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