subscriptions__describe_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, rate limits, or safety (e.g., read-only vs mutation). The description only lists output fields, leaving the agent uncertain about operational impact.

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 sentence with a bracketed prefix that provides domain context. It is concise and front-loaded, but the prefix could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists the specific items returned (fleet-standard version, catalog digest, security posture, etc.), which is fairly complete for a read-only retrieval tool. However, it lacks information about whether the tool requires authentication or any side effects, but for a simple describe operation, it is adequate.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the return fields, but since there are no parameters to document, the baseline is 3. The description explains what the tool does, compensating for the empty 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 states 'Return the fleet-standard version, catalog digest, security posture, lifecycle policy, and capabilities.' This is a specific verb+resource, clearly indicating the tool retrieves configuration details. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'describe_agent' tools, but the subscription context is implied by the bracketed prefix.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only states what it does; it does not provide context about when it is appropriate, prerequisites, or when to avoid it. Sibling tools with similar names suggest alternatives that are not distinguished.

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