VPS_getActionDetailsV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It correctly identifies this as a read operation ('retrieve detailed information'), but it does not mention idempotency, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The name 'get' implies read, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious. Score 3 is appropriate as it meets the minimum but lacks depth.

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 very concise: two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds a use case. Every word earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and how to use it (monitoring specific actions). There is no missing information that would hinder an AI agent's ability to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('Virtual Machine ID' and 'Action ID'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, baseline 3 applies. No additional parameter context is given.

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 action: 'Retrieve detailed information about a specific action performed on a specified virtual machine.' It specifies the verb 'retrieve,' the resource 'action details,' and the context 'on a specified virtual machine.' This distinguishes it from siblings like VPS_getActionsV1, which lists actions.

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 provides a use case: 'Use this endpoint to monitor specific VPS operation status and details.' It implies the tool is for getting details of a single action, not a list. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like VPS_getActionsV1. Still, the guidance is clear and adequate for a simple retrieval.

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