opencdr_ir_actions_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the 'Read-only.' line is redundant. The description does add genuinely useful context about rollback lifecycle semantics (pending/succeeded/failed, error on failure, back-compat mirroring), though most of this is return-value semantics rather than operational behavior such as auth or rate limits.

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 core action is stated in the first sentence and the rollback details follow as supporting context. Slightly dense parenthetical enumerations, but every clause carries information about the returned fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the rollback-related return fields, including the back-compat aliasing rule. However, it leaves the required detection_id argument entirely undefined, which is a real gap for a by-ID fetch tool.

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% and the single parameter, detection_id, is never explained in the description. The agent gets no hint about the format, source, or scope of the identifier (e.g., whether it is the detection ID returned by a list call). With one undocumented required param, the description fails to compensate.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource: 'Get a specific executed IR action.' The word 'specific' distinguishes it from opencdr_ir_actions_list without naming it. Clear enough for an agent to tell fetch-by-id from list apart, though naming the sibling would push it to 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the list tool for discovery. Usage is only implied by the 'specific executed IR action' phrasing. An agent must infer that detection_id comes from a prior list call.

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