Get agent details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds the specific fields returned (name, type, model, status), which gives some insight into the response, but it does not disclose error handling, response shape, or other behavioral traits. This is consistent with the calibration example for get_calls, which received a 3 for similar incremental transparency.

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 compact sentence that immediately states the verb and resource, then provides relevant detail. Every word contributes to clarity, with no filler 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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and response fields. It does not mention error cases or edge behaviors, but the simplicity of the tool and the readOnlyHint annotation make this a minor omission. The completeness is slightly better than minimal due to the explicit field list.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter agent_id, and its description already explains it's a UUID from list_agents or create_agent. The tool description merely paraphrases 'by its id' without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('one agent's details') while specifying the included fields (name, type, model, status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_agents (which lists all agents) and get_workflow (which gets workflow details), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by stating 'Get one agent's details by its id', and the parameter description notes where to obtain the id (list_agents or create_agent). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the guidance at an implied level.

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