defender_get_machine_action_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the polling hint and enumerates the returned status values, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It does not describe pagination or error behavior, but for a single-resource GET that is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second gives the operational use case (polling). No wasted words, no fluff.

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 single-parameter read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It omits only minor details like the output shape, but no output schema exists and the enumerated statuses in the description partly compensate. The polling guidance completes the operational picture.

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 coverage is 100% for the single action_id parameter, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond identifying the resource being fetched. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets a single machine action and lists the fields it returns (type, status, requestor, comment, times). This distinguishes it from the sibling defender_get_machine_actions (plural) by the explicit singular 'one machine action'. A 5 would require naming the sibling explicitly, which it does not do.

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 instruction 'Poll it after a response action' gives a clear when-to-use context and implies repeated polling. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name defender_get_machine_actions as the alternative for listing actions, so it stops just short of a 5.

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