get-agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses the HTTP method/path (GET /api/v1/agents/info/{agent_id}) and lists the returned fields, indicating a read operation. It omits error behavior, permissions, and whether missing IDs return null or error, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by concise implementation and return-shape details. It is efficient and contains no filler, though the SDK mirror mention is marginally useful.

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?

Since there is no output schema, listing the returned fields is valuable and sufficient for an agent to understand the response shape. No annotations exist, but the GET endpoint and return fields communicate the key read-only behavior; only error/permission details are missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter is already documented as an agent UUID from list-agents. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one agent's full record') and explicitly scopes it to a single agent, which distinguishes it from sibling list-agents. The endpoint and return fields reinforce exactly what the tool does.

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?

Clear that this is for retrieving one agent when the agent_id is known, and the parameter description ties it to list-agents. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it or compare against alternatives such as list-agents, but the single-record scope makes usage apparent.

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