get_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'fetches the full definition', implying read-only. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as safety, required permissions, or whether the definition is returned in a specific format. The agent is left to infer 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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it is very brief; additional context could be provided without losing conciseness, but as is it efficiently conveys the core action.

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 simple nature (1 param, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'full definition' entails (e.g., structure, fields) or provide any hints about the return value. An agent may not know how to use the result effectively.

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 parameter description in the schema already explains that 'name' is the agent name from get_context_index. The tool description adds no further semantic information beyond confirming it uses the name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the work.

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 (fetches), resource (full definition of a Cursor agent), and mechanism (by name). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_rule or get_skill, which target different resources.

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. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not say 'use this when you need the agent definition' or contrast with get_context_index.

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