trmm_get_agent

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: heavy sections such as services, wmi_detail, graphics, and timezone list are omitted unless named in include, because they can exceed 100KB. This goes beyond what the annotations provide.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about heavy sections is presented efficiently.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, what is excluded by default, and how to include heavy sections. Annotations cover the safety profile, so no additional behavioral context is required.

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. It explains the include parameter with concrete section names and a size rationale, and identifies agent as the target of 'one agent' detail. The exact format of agent is not specified, but the two parameters are meaningfully described.

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 a specific resource ('one agent') and enumerates the returned detail sections: hardware, OS, disks, uptime, checks and policies. This distinguishes it from sibling list/overview tools like trmm_list_agents and trmm_fleet_overview.

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?

It gives clear context: use this tool when full detail for a single agent is needed, as opposed to fleet or list overviews. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'one agent' framing makes the primary use case obvious.

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