yupao_get_action

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it enumerates what is returned (preview, confirmation summary, execution status, receipt) and restates the non-sending guarantee, which matters for a tool sitting next to an execute sibling.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the returned artifacts, closing with the key constraint. Nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the return contents and the non-mutating behavior. It falls short only on the provenance of action_id and error behavior for invalid ids.

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 single parameter action_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. '具体操作' only loosely implies that action_id identifies an action; it says nothing about where the id comes from (presumably the prepare_* tools) or what happens with an unknown id.

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 pairs a specific verb with its resource: '读取具体操作' (read a specific action) plus the enumerated artifacts it returns (preview, confirmation summary, status, receipt). The closing clause '不执行任何发送' implicitly separates it from yupao_execute_action, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-side counterpart to yupao_execute_action, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of calling it before executing, and no named alternative.

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