get_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, though the verb 'get' implies a read. It adds useful behavioral context by naming fields to inspect, but lacks deeper details like permissions or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then actionable guidance. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and provides critical follow-up steps for agent_chat. It does not describe the full return shape, but 'full configuration' implies the object structure and is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter agent_id is already described as 'Agent UUID or name'. The description repeats this, adding no new semantic meaning 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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves the full configuration of a single agent by UUID or name. This distinguishes it from sibling list_agents, which presumably lists all agents.

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?

Provides explicit downstream guidance: after fetching the config, check kb_selection_mode and knowledge_bases and pass knowledge_base_ids to agent_chat under specific conditions. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the instructions make the use case clear.

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