wafle_agents_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing that the response will contain system_prompt, tools_allowed, guardrails, trigger_config, and stats counters, giving the agent concrete expectations of the return payload. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action and resource, then lists key payload elements. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or vague language.

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 operation, the description fully covers what the tool returns (full definition with key fields). Combined with complete schema and annotations, no critical information is missing. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list.

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% with both 'slug' and 'agent_slug' fully documented. The description adds only that the lookup is 'by its slug', which aligns with the schema but doesn't go beyond it. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'one agent by its slug', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like wafle_agents_list (plural) or wafle_agents_run (execution). It also lists the contained fields, making the tool's scope explicit.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single agent's detailed definition when you know its slug, which is a clear use context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident for a singular get operation alongside list/create/update siblings.

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