agents-get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions a returned field (`live_present`) but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects. It also does not describe error behavior or limitations.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key output field. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool is a simple get with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what it does and highlights an important field. However, it lacks details about error handling (e.g., if session not found) and assumes the agent understands 'MCP connection state' 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 covers 100% of the parameter (agent_session_id) with a description. The description adds 'by RID' but this essentially repeats the schema's 'Agent session RID'. No additional meaning or format details are provided beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('Fetches a single agent session'), the resource ('agent session by RID'), and adds the distinctive detail about `live_present` field. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agents-list (which lists multiple) and agents-register (which creates).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., agents-list, agents-heartbeat). It does not specify prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is the appropriate choice.

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