get_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, and 'registered action contract' clarifies the target, but the description does not disclose return format, error behavior, or what happens when the id does not exist. It is not misleading but is minimally transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool does and how to invoke it.

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 retrieval tool, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks details about version semantics (e.g., null meaning latest), output shape, or not-found behavior. With no output schema or annotations, a bit more context would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the raw schema. It does this by identifying 'action' as an id and 'version' as optional, which directly clarifies both parameters. It does not add format or default details, but the essential semantic mapping is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('registered action contract') and distinguishes this single-item retrieval from sibling tools like list_actions. Including 'by id and optional version' makes the exact scope unambiguous.

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 usage for retrieving a specific action contract by id, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is adequate but relies on the agent inferring that list_actions would be used for listing multiple contracts.

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