get_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the return shape matches list_agents and includes the live status rollup, which is not inferable from annotations or the minimal schema.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is stated immediately, and the usage hints are concise and actionable.

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, the description plus annotations and schema fully cover operation semantics, valid ID sources, and return-shape expectations. No output schema exists, but referencing list_agents' fields is sufficient context for an agent to understand the response.

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 id parameter is already described as 'Agent UUID (from register_agent or list_agents).' The description mostly repeats this in prose ('by UUID') without adding new format, validation, or default information, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get a single LastPing agent by UUID') and distinguishes it from list_agents by emphasizing 'single' and from mutation tools like update_agent/delete_agent. It also specifies the resource type and return-scope detail (same fields as list_agents, including live status rollup).

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 explicitly directs the agent to use list_agents to find valid IDs and register_agent to create one, making the typical read flow clear. It does not explicitly contrast with update_agent/delete_agent, but sibling names plus the read-only annotation make the intended use clear.

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