get_action_detail

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only implies a read operation by saying 'Get details'. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format specifics.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and then the parameter. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (though not described), the description is minimally adequate for a simple 1-parameter tool. However, it lacks behavioral context and does not explain what 'attestations' entails or how the output relates to other tools.

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?

With only one required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some value by explaining 'action_id: the action to look up', but this largely restates the schema field name and type. It does not provide format constraints or usage caveats.

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 'Get details of a specific action including attestations,' which is a specific verb+resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_trail', the term 'action' is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_trails' or 'submit_action'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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