ghl_agent_studio_get_by_id

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the return content (metadata and non-deleted versions) and constraints (active status, required locationId). No contradiction 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the title, and includes necessary details like endpoint and OAuth scopes. However, it could be slightly more focused on behavioral aspects rather than technical endpoint info.

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 no output schema, the description adequately mentions the return content (metadata and versions). However, it lacks details on error conditions, response size limits, or parameter formats, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that locationId is required and agentId is the agent ID, but does not describe the 'source' parameter. This is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 tool gets a specific agent by ID for a specified location, returning all versions. It distinguishes from siblings like list or delete by specifying the exact resource and action.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single agent but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list or execute. It provides context on required parameters and active status but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool names.

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