Get action details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool is for monitoring a specific operation, but it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, or any further operational nuances.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core operation and the second gives the intended use case, with no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 read-only two-parameter endpoint, the description is largely sufficient: annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters. The only gap is that without an output schema, the description could more explicitly enumerate what 'detailed information' includes, but the monitoring context makes the tool's purpose clear.

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%, with both actionId and virtualMachineId described. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as ID formats or relationships, so it does not improve on what the schema already provides.

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 operation: retrieving detailed information about a specific action on a specific virtual machine. It is specific enough to be understood, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling VPS_getActionsV1 or other list-oriented tools.

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 phrase 'Use this endpoint to monitor specific VPS operation status and details' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not state alternatives or exclusions, such as using VPS_getActionsV1 when a list of actions is needed.

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