specialist_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, returns a not_found error for unknown agents, and conditionally includes persona fields. This is good behavioral detail, though it omits details like authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the primary action and result, followed by error behavior and use case. No fluff 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?

The tool is a simple get, but without an output schema the description should more thoroughly describe the return shape. It mentions persona text and file path, but not other registry row fields. Also, include_permissions semantics are unclear. The description covers the core but leaves 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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions agent_id ('by agent_id') but does not explain app_id or include_permissions. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool fetches one specialist's registry row by agent_id, including persona text and file path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly framing this as the read-only way an orchestrator inspects a specialist before dispatching work.

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 a clear use case: 'how an orchestrator inspects a specialist before dispatching work to it.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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