Show Action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the GET endpoint and return type, which is consistent but does not provide significant new behavioral context beyond what annotations convey. It doesn't contradict 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 concise, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. It includes relevant API details without excessive verbosity. Each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 the simple GET resource, the description covers the purpose, required parameters, and return type. However, it doesn't explain the relationship to the incident (incident_id parameter is not mentioned) or that pagination parameters (page, per_page) are available. This leaves some gaps for full context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description only repeats that project_id and id are required, without adding new semantics. The schema already describes all parameters adequately.

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 it 'Returns the specified Action' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling 'show_' tools by specifying it's for an Action within Incidents, and provides the API endpoint for precise identification.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier,' which implies usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. No exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from sibling tools.

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