retell_get_chat_agent

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 only says 'Get details' without specifying whether the agent object is returned in full, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, or any permissions or limits. It adds minimal context beyond the basic read operation.

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 clear sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately actionable. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It doesn't specify what 'details' includes, whether the response is the full object, or how it differs from 'retell_get_chat_agent_versions'. It could be more complete by naming the return type or expected behavior.

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 100% — the 'agent_id' property is described as 'The unique ID of the chat agent.' The description's 'by its ID' reinforces the parameter's purpose but doesn't add meaningful syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage.

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 action ('Get details'), the resource ('chat agent'), and the lookup scope ('by its ID'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from listing, creating, updating, or deleting chat agents, and also from the sibling 'retell_get_agent' for regular agents.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that you should first retrieve an agent ID via 'retell_list_chat_agents', nor does it note exclusions (e.g., not for getting versions). The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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