get_action_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation safe; the description adds that the tool returns frame range, channels, and keyframe count, which is useful but largely duplicates what an output schema would provide. No mention of side effects, errors, or requirements beyond the annotation.

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?

A single 11-word sentence that front-loads the verb and object and appends the info details. No filler, no repetition of schema.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only getter with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and key return content. It lacks explicit relationship to sibling tools (e.g., 'use after list_actions'), but the essential information is present given the low complexity.

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 description must compensate. It does so by establishing that 'name' refers to the action being queried, making the parameter's role clear despite the bare schema. It does not specify naming format, but for a single string parameter this is minor.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'action', and enumerates the exact information returned (frame range, channels, keyframe count), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_actions or get_keyframes.

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?

Offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_actions (to enumerate actions) or get_keyframes (to inspect keyframe data). The context is clear only by inference, not explicit instruction.

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