actiond_action_get

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it errors when the ID does not exist and notes that terminal job records are kept, which covers relevant behavioral expectations. No contradictions with 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?

The description is dense but focused: each sentence contributes meaning, including the action, returned fields, use cases, paired tools, and error behavior. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and explains behavior for both running and terminal jobs, plus error conditions. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect.

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 covers 100% of parameters and the id parameter is described as 'The action/job ID to retrieve'. The description repeats this and adds an error case, but does not add substantial new constraint or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Fetch full detail for one CI/CD job by its ID', which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by naming paired tools like actiond_log and actiond_diagnose, making its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings.

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 explains when to use it: for running jobs to poll progress, for terminal jobs to review post-mortem, and pairs it with actiond_log for logs and actiond_diagnose for interpretation. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X' but provides clear contextual guidance and an error condition.

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