get_agent_definition

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

The description reveals the resolution order (local override first, then embedded default), which is helpful behavioral context. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error handling (e.g., what happens if neither source exists).

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the resolution logic, which is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., missing agent or fallback behavior). In the context of many sibling tools, it might benefit from more specificity about the output.

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 input schema has a single enum parameter 'name' with no description, and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'a given agent.' With 0% schema description coverage, more parameter context is expected but not provided.

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 returns the full markdown system prompt for a given agent and specifies the resolution order (local override → embedded default). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_agents' or 'read_squad_config', which could be confused but are distinct in functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any context or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't specify that this tool is for retrieving prompt definitions or contrast it with similar tools.

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