status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals it is a read operation (get), but does not state whether it requires authentication, whether it might return partial data if the agent is busy, or what happens if the agent is not accessible. No contradictions, but significant gaps.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It directly states the action and the object. Perfectly front-loaded and minimal.

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 getter with one param and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks context on what 'latest job' means, whether the output includes status fields, or if there are any side effects. Given the tool is read-only, a 3 is fair; it's adequate but missing minor details.

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 has 0% description coverage for the parameter, so the description must compensate. The description does not explain 'agent_id' beyond naming it, but the parameter name is self-explanatory (an ID string). This is mediocre compensation; more detail like 'the ID of the agent to query' would help but isn't critical.

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 it fetches an accessible agent and its latest job, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list' (which likely lists agents) and 'result' (which may fetch job results). However, it could be more specific about what 'accessible' means or what a 'job' entails.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'status' vs 'doctor' or 'whoami'. It implies it is for checking status, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use doctor for diagnostics' or 'use whoami for current user'.

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