get_agent

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes a read operation (return definition) and implies no side effects, but the phrase 'activate the agent persona' could be misinterpreted as a state change. Does not detail whether retrieval is idempotent or if auth is needed.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states what it does, second gives usage. Front-loaded and compact.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. However, it omits details about the output structure (what constitutes a 'full agent definition'), which could be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 100% with one parameter (slug). Description adds an example ('e.g. 'cs-security-analyst'') which is helpful but minimal. Does not elaborate on slug format or validation beyond 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?

Clearly states it returns the full agent definition for a cs-* orchestrator agent, and specifies the use case of activating the agent persona. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_agents and get_skill.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to activate the agent persona in the client's LLM', providing clear context. Does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling tools offer implicit differentiation.

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