Get agent configuration

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral details beyond that: knowledge base attachments are always returned as an array, and the prompt object either reports where its sections were located or explicitly states none were found. This gives the agent concrete expectations about response shape and edge-case behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose, then add two high-value behavioral clarifications. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the caller receives: the configuration components, the guaranteed array shape for knowledge base attachments, and the prompt object's fallback behavior. Nothing necessary for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter, agent_id, and the input schema already fully documents it as the agent's UUID returned by list_agents (100% schema description coverage). The description does not add parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full configuration of one Ringg agent,' and enumerates the exact contents (prompt sections, custom variables, knowledge bases, voice, languages, tools). The singular 'one' clearly distinguishes it from list_agents, and the domain terms separate it from knowledge-base-only tools.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you need the full configuration for a single agent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the singular scope and enumerated fields give a strong implicit boundary against sibling list tools.

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