get_agent

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotation readOnlyHint: true. It does not describe output format, error handling, or rate limits. The annotation already covers the read-only nature, so the description adds little value.

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 efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool, though it could benefit from a slight expansion on usage.

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 description is adequate for a simple tool with one required parameter and an output schema. However, it does not mention possible return values or error conditions. Given the tool's simplicity, it meets minimum viability but has gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description does not compensate by adding format, validation, or examples for agent_id. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but more context could improve understanding.

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 'Get an agent by ID' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (agent) with a specific identifier (ID). It distinguishes from siblings like list_agents (multiple) and create/update/delete 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?

The description implies usage when a specific agent's details are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_agents or get_capability. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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