paperclip_get_agent

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions the fields returned and does not disclose any side effects, error behavior, or authorization requirements. Being a 'get' operation, it's safe to assume read-only, but this is not explicitly stated. The lack of any behavioral context beyond the surface purpose is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 includes the key fields returned, which is helpful. However, it does not mention the response format or error handling, but given the simplicity, the description is nearly complete. A small improvement would be to state that it returns a single object or mention error scenarios, so it falls slightly short of a perfect 5.

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 description coverage is 100% (agentId is described as 'ID of the agent'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'specific Paperclip AI agent', and lists the included fields (status, role, budget). It distinguishes itself from siblings like paperclip_list_agents (listing) and paperclip_update_agent (updating) by implying a singular retrieval operation.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving details of one specific agent, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like paperclip_list_agents or how to combine with other tools. No exclusions or alternative names are given, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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