Get one agent in detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior, and the description aligns with these by describing a pure retrieval operation with no mention of side effects. The description reinforces the read-only nature without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, efficiently listing what the tool returns and when to use it. No redundant or unnecessary words; the structure is well-organized and scannable.

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 single-agent retrieval tool, the description adequately covers its function and usage context. No output schema is provided, but the description's promise of a 'full picture' is sufficiently clear for an agent to know what to expect.

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 provides a thorough description of the agent_id parameter, including an example and the zero-padding rule. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, but the schema alone offers high coverage, so the baseline is met and slightly exceeded by the helpful example.

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 retrieves a comprehensive set of details for a single agent, including registration, connection state, OS, hardware, group membership, and installed-package count. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list-type tools by focusing on a specific agent.

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 phrase 'Start here when investigating a specific endpoint' provides clear situational guidance. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, it strongly implies when this tool is the appropriate choice versus broader list or summary tools.

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