form_get_resource_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the raw REST path, with no information about permission requirements, what a 'resource action' object actually contains, or error behavior for a nonexistent id.

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 lines, front-loaded with the operation and then the endpoint. No filler, though the terseness edges into under-specification rather than true efficiency.

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 carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it says nothing about the shape or fields of a resource action. Combined with unresolved ambiguity against several sibling form_* tools, the definition is not sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description's '{id}' path template confirms the id is a path parameter but adds no semantics such as format or where the id comes from, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get resource action') and the underlying endpoint makes the by-id retrieval explicit. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the very similarly named sibling form_get_r_esource_action_for_custom_resource, or from form_get_action_form / form_list_actions, so an agent cannot confidently pick between them from the text alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is a plain lookup by id purely from the URL template.

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