get_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It helpfully discloses that the response aggregates related entities (issues, MCP servers, code locations), which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, pagination, or how large the bundled payload may be.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource and its bundled contents are stated immediately.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must stand in for both. It compensates by naming the returned collections, but the lack of any asset_id semantics and the absence of usage context leave gaps for a detail-fetch tool.

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% for the single asset_id parameter. The description implies the ID identifies an agent, but adds no format, source, or constraint details to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent to infer what a valid asset_id looks like.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('an agent's detail') and enumerates the related data bundled in (issues, MCP servers, code locations). It is clearly distinct from the plural list_agents sibling, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite for asset_id, and no routing to alternatives like list_agents for enumeration or get_issue for the individual issues it returns. Usage is only loosely implied by the word 'detail'.

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