get_agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-content context (schemas, triggers, configurations), but does not disclose operational behaviors such as error handling, permission requirements, or response structure beyond that.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the action and the key content categories, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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 one-parameter read-only fetch, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the parameter is fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover safety. The main gap is the unresolved ambiguity with 'get_agent_full', which prevents full confidence in tool selection.

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 single parameter 'agent_id' is already described as 'UUID do agente' in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning, format details, or usage nuance for the parameter, so the baseline score applies.

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 clear verb ('Retorna') and resource ('detalhes completos de um agente'), and specifies what is included: schemas, triggers, and configurations. However, it does not differentiate this endpoint from the sibling 'get_agent_full', which appears to have an overlapping purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_agents' or 'get_agent_full'. The description implies it is for fetching details of a single agent, but it does not state exclusions, preconditions, or when a sibling would be more appropriate.

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