get_agent_full

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what the returned data includes, but it does not disclose response-size limits, authorization expectations, or behavior when some sections are empty or unavailable.

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 compact sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and enumerates the included components. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.

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 read-only aggregate endpoint with one required parameter, the description covers the main expected return categories: data, schemas, triggers, CSPs, and publishing configuration. It stops short of full completeness because there is no output schema and no hint of response structure, such as nesting or whether some sections may be omitted.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage and fully documents agent_id as 'UUID do agente'. The description does not add anything beyond the schema for the single parameter, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage.

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 ('Retorna') and resource ('visão completa do agente'), and enumerates the exact contents: data, active schemas, triggers, linked CSPs, and publishing configuration. This differentiates it from more specific siblings like get_agent or list_triggers by establishing it as the aggregate 'full' view.

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 phrase 'visão completa' implies this tool is appropriate when the entire agent state is needed, which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_agent for basic agent data, so the differentiation from sibling tools is mostly left to inference.

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