voice_ai_get_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this—such as what the returned action object contains, whether it can return null for missing IDs, or how the default locationId affects results. With no additional context, the description fails to add value.

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 only three words, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not front-load any informative content beyond the name, and it omits crucial details such as what the tool actually returns or how it behaves. A concise description should pack more meaning into few words, not merely restate the name.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the response contains. It also lacks an explanation of the 'Agent Action' concept and how locationId defaulting works. The description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves a specific entity; an agent would need to look elsewhere to understand what it is getting.

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%—both actionId and locationId have descriptive text in the schema. The description itself adds no further parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline for high coverage. No extra detail like parameter formats or relationships is provided, but the schema already handles semantics adequately.

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 'Get Agent Action' is vague and barely expands on the tool name. It does not specify what an 'Agent Action' is, nor does it distinguish this tool from similar ones like conversation_ai_get_action_by_id or voice_ai_get_agent. A clear statement of what the action represents and the resource being retrieved is missing.

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. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and parameters, which is insufficient given the many similar 'get' tools in the sibling list.

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