get_agent_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the read-only intent via 'Retrieve', but it does not disclose non-obvious traits such as behavior when the ID is not found, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is minimal disclosure, scoring 2 as per the rubric for no annotations and lack of added 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 very concise and front-loaded, with no fluff. However, the Args section duplicates schema information that is already present in the input schema, so it does not earn its place fully. Still, it is efficient and under control, earning a 4.

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?

The tool is a simple get-by-ID operation, and an output schema exists, so return format is covered. The description covers the core purpose and parameter adequately for a low-complexity tool. However, it lacks any usage guidance relative to sibling tools, preventing a 5. Overall, it is reasonably complete for the context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section says 'agent_id: The agent ID', which is essentially tautological and adds no meaning beyond the parameter name and type in the schema. It does not explain format, constraints, or how it is used in the retrieval. This is weak compensation, scoring 2.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a single agent'), with the scope 'by ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agents (which lists) and filter_agents (which filters), matching the 5 criterion of specific verb+resource and differentiation from siblings.

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 usage when you have an agent ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over get_agents or filter_agents, nor does it mention exclusions such as 'only when you know the exact ID'. This is implied rather than explicit, matching the 'implied usage' level.

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