Get an agent

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: admin-only access, the fact that the token is redacted, and the consequence for token recovery. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure that helps an agent avoid misuse.

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?

Very concise: two short sentences front-load the core action, access restriction, and the critical redaction behavior. Every clause earns its place and no filler is present.

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-object get operation with one fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers authorization, redaction behavior, and the relevant recovery path. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100% and a single parameter already described as 'Numeric agent id,' the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no redundant semantics, which is appropriate here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns one agent.' The singular scope distinguishes it from list_agents, and the additional admin-only and token redaction details clarify what this operation actually does.

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 provides practical when-not-to-use guidance: because the token is redacted, an agent that lost its token must be recreated via delete_agent and create_agent. It does not explicitly contrast with list_agents, but the single-agent scope and the recovery path give strong contextual direction.

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