Get an agent

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations don't cover: secrets are returned masked, and a 404 is returned when the agent is absent from the credential's workspace. It doesn't mention rate limits or the shape of the returned prompts/settings, but this is above the annotation baseline.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by masking and error semantics. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and the description adds the masking caveat and the 404 condition, which are the main things an agent needs before calling. Only the lack of alternative-tool routing keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, including a detailed explanation of the optional X-Orchestra-Account-Id header and its account-targeting semantics, so the schema carries parameters entirely. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Get an agent') and adds scope detail ('with its prompts and settings'), which separates it from list_agents. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch a single agent by id when you already have the id. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as list_agents for discovery or get_agent_session for session data.

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