get_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only states 'Get details' with no mention of return format, error behavior (e.g., 404 if agent not found), authentication requirements, or that the operation is read-only. While the verb 'Get' implies a read, it is too minimal to fully disclose 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundancy or unnecessary information. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it highly scannable.

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 description of return values, the description is incomplete for a getter tool. It fails to specify what 'details' are included, the response shape, or failure scenarios. Given the simplicity of the tool, one might expect at least a mention of the returned agent object or that not found will lead to an error.

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 already documents the single parameter agentId with a clear description, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter (e.g., where to find the ID or any format constraints), so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific AI agent', making it distinct from siblings like list_agents (which returns all agents) and get_prompt (a different resource). This is specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'specific AI agent' clearly implies the need for an agentId and establishes the context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_agents to get all agents'), so it falls short of the top score.

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