actions_get_action_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the license requirement, the POST method, and an example request, but it does not describe the response format, possible errors, or side effects. The phrase 'Response Action' is ambiguous, leaving significant behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 compact and well-structured: a concise title, a one-sentence explanation, the license requirement, the endpoint, and an example request. Every part earns its place with no unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose, license, and request construction. However, it omits response details and error handling, leaving an agent uncertain about what to expect after the request. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, and the schema already describes the only parameter 'group_action_id' as the 'Action ID of the selected request.' The description's example request body repeats the same structure without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the status of requested actions by action ID, using the verb 'retrieve' and naming the resource. It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like scripts_get_script_execution_status.

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 through the required license, the HTTP endpoint, and an example request body, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions. The guidance is present but implicit.

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