Action Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, aligning with the 'check' verb. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the implications of specific statuses (declined, needs_review, unknown) and prescribing follow-up actions, which prevents inappropriate re-proposals. No contradiction exists.

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 comprehensive yet efficient, starting with the purpose and status list, then explaining critical statuses with actionable guidance, and ending with usage context. Every sentence adds value with no filler, and the main function is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's function, all possible outcomes, their meanings, and when to use it. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the return structure, but the status enumeration implies it. Given the simplicity and annotations, this is nearly complete.

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 single parameter action_id is described in the schema as 'ID returned by action_propose', and the description also mentions action_propose, reinforcing its origin. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not add extra detail; baseline 3 is appropriate since the parameter is fully documented.

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 purpose: to check the status and outcome of an action, enumerating all possible statuses. It differentiates from siblings by referencing action_commit and action_propose, making it evident this is a read-only status query rather than a creation or confirmation tool.

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 explicitly instructs usage after action_commit to check patient approval and report the final result. It also provides conditional guidance: never re-propose for declined or unknown, and show evidence for needs_review. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use advice relative to alternatives.

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