Get an agent

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose rate limits, error scenarios, or other behavioral details.

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 very short (two sentences) and includes only essential information. The first sentence echoes the title, which is slightly redundant. It is concise but not fully front-loaded with the most critical usage information.

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?

Given that there is an output schema and annotations cover safety, the description could be adequate for a simple retrieval. However, the parameter is undocumented (schema coverage 0%), and the description does not clarify what the tool returns or potential prerequisites. The description leaves gaps that could confuse the agent.

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 input schema has a single parameter (path.id) with no description. The description does not explain what 'id' represents or how to obtain it. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden but provides no parameter documentation.

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 states 'Get an agent' which is a clear verb+resource, and specifies the endpoint GET /api/agents/{id}. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like pc_get_agents_me or pc_get_companies_by_company_id_agents, which retrieve agents in different ways. The purpose is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools exist for getting the current agent (pc_get_agents_me) or listing agents (pc_get_companies_by_company_id_agents), the description provides no usage context or selection criteria.

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