get_agent

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable extras: the API key scope requirement, the response envelope with untrusted_fields, and a security warning to treat those fields as data. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

Four tightly-packed sentences: the auth requirement, the action, the response content, and the security note. Each sentence earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, it covers everything: the auth prerequisite, how to obtain the ID, what the response contains, and how to handle untrusted fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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% for the id parameter, which already includes the UUID source from register_agent or list_agents. The description reiterates this but adds no new semantic details, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('a single LastPing agent'), and a scope ('by UUID'). It clearly distinguishes from list_agents by emphasizing 'single' and noting it returns the same fields, which prevents confusion with the list operation.

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?

It provides clear usage context: requires an API key with read scope or higher, and tells the agent to use list_agents or register_agent to obtain valid IDs. It does not explicitly contrast this with get_agent_dependencies/get_agent_usage, but the general purpose is well implied.

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