get_server_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if agent_id doesn't exist), permission requirements, or any side effects. The minimal statement offers only basic transparency and no additional behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information, making it an example of efficient, structured communication.

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 get-by-ID tool with an output schema and one required parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't explain when to use it, error cases, or any nuances, but given the low complexity, the lack of such detail is a moderate gap rather than a severe one.

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% (the sole parameter 'agent_id' is described as 'Server agent ID'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond implying that the ID identifies the specific agent to retrieve. Since the schema already captures the parameter semantics, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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: 'Get information for a specific server agent.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('server agent'), and the word 'specific' distinguishes it from list-type operations among sibling tools. However, it doesn't further elaborate on what 'information' entails or how it differs from potential list/get-all alternatives.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as listing agents or updating/deleting them. It also doesn't specify any preconditions (e.g., agent must exist). This is a clear absence of guidance.

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