actiond_action_get

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns an error for invalid IDs, which is useful. 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 detailed but not excessive. It lists return fields, mentions running/terminal use cases, pairs with other tools, and notes error behavior – all in a compact form. Slightly long but still efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists all returned fields, covers both job states, and mentions the error case. It provides enough context for an agent to know what to expect and how to use the result. Missing explicit note about authentication or rate limits, but not critical.

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 'id' is described in the schema itself ('The job ID to retrieve'), and the description does not add additional meaning beyond that. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 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?

Clearly states it fetches full detail for a CI/CD job by ID, enumerating the returned fields (status, timestamps, commit map, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns full job detail and pairs with log/diagnose tools for other needs.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: works for running jobs (poll) and terminal jobs, and mentions pairing with actiond_log and actiond_diagnose. It also notes the error condition for a non-existent ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus all sibling tools.

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