get_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or other traits. However, the action is obviously a read operation, and the description provides sufficient context for a simple get tool.

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 sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resources. Slight room for improvement in adding parameter details.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description reasonably conveys what is returned (profile and campaigns), but lacks specifics on structure or contents.

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%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions for 'agentId'. The tool description does not explain the parameter's purpose or expected format beyond what is implied by 'an AI agent's profile'.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'an AI agent's profile and their campaigns', and the platform 'Clawsfund'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (fund_campaign, get_campaign, list_campaigns, search_campaigns) which all focus on campaigns, not agent profiles.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to other tools in the description.

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