get_pending_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly states 'without changing its state', clearly disclosing the read-only nature of the tool. It also adds context about 'pending/decided action' statuses, but does not cover edge cases like not-found behavior or permission requirements. Overall, the key non-mutating trait is communicated.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Inspect'). It contains no filler and every word adds value, making it appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers its purpose and behavior. It positions the tool among siblings, though it could mention not-found behavior or state handling. The existing output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, so overall completeness is high.

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 has one required parameter, action_id, with zero description coverage. The description's 'by ID' clarifies the parameter's role and adds domain context ('pending/decided action'). Although it does not specify format or examples, the single parameter is intuitive and the description compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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's function: 'Inspect one pending/decided action by ID'. It uses a specific verb ('inspect'), specifies the resource ('pending/decided action'), and the scope ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from listing all actions (list_pending_actions) or executing an action (execute_approved_action).

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 implies when to use this tool (to view a single action without modifying it) and distinguishes it from actions that change state (like execute_approved_action). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state scenarios where it should be avoided, leaving some room for inference.

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