Получение AI-агента

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

The description says it 'returns detailed information' (a read operation), but the annotation readOnlyHint=false suggests the operation may have side effects or is not read-only. This is a direct contradiction. The description does not disclose any potential non-read behavior or side effects, and with annotations missing clarity, the description fails to provide transparency.

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 immediately states the action and resource, then lists the return fields. There is no fluff or redundancy; every element adds value.

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 one-parameter GET tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (name, status, access, model, token package, system prompt, remaining tokens). It doesn't mention error cases or prerequisites, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete. The annotation contradiction slightly detracts from overall context but is not directly relevant to 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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter agent_id with a clear description ('REQUIRED FIELD - AI agent ID'). The tool description only reinforces that it operates by ID without adding additional syntax, format, or nuance beyond the schema.

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's function: returns detailed information about an AI agent by ID, listing the specific fields returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_ai_agents (which lists agents) and get_ai_agent_statistic (which returns statistics).

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need detailed information about a specific AI agent by its ID. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the usage is straightforward and unambiguous for a single-parameter GET-style tool.

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