action_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the description earns credit for adding failure semantics instead: session changes or missing records resolve to UNKNOWN, and there is no cross-process exactly-once guarantee. That is genuinely useful context an agent could not get from the 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?

Dense and front-loaded in two short clauses, with the core action ('query... never replay') stated first and the caveats second. No filler, though the compressed phrasing borders on cryptic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with 0% schema description coverage on two parameters and no explanation of the action_id semantics or the view filter, the definition is under-specified for correct invocation.

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 schema documents nothing about either parameter. The description's phrase 'filtered feedback' weakly gestures at the optional view parameter but never explains action_id format, validity, or what view values do, leaving both parameters effectively undocumented.

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 ('query an action record in this game session'), but 'action record' and 'filtered feedback' are vague jargon. The 'never replay it' clause hints it is a status read rather than a re-execution, but it does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like observe, act, or health.

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 only usage signal is the embedded 'never replay it', which vaguely implies you should not use this to re-run an action, but no alternative tool is named and no when-to-use context is given. An agent must infer how this relates to act, observe, or health.

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