get_action_help

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds the meaningful behavioral distinction that this returns static argument syntax while dynamic availability lives elsewhere — a real trait not encoded in annotations.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then the omission behavior, then the scope caveat. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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, single-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and where authoritative state lives. It could note that the returned data mirrors the take_action argument schema, but the essentials are present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the single parameter's role (an action name) and the meaningful default (omit to list all), but adds no format guidance beyond that; the enumerated action values live only in the schema's enum. Adequate but not additive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get action names and required/optional parameters') scoped explicitly to take_action, so the agent knows this is documentation for that sibling rather than a state query. It also contrasts itself with get_game_state ('the current game state supplies the actual available choices and indices'), making the split unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete usage rule ('Omit action to see all supported gameplay actions') and clarifies when this tool is not what you want (live choices come from game state, not here). It stops short of explicitly saying 'call this before take_action to learn its syntax', which would be a 5.

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