vro_get_action

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds only the returned fields (script, inputs, return type), which is useful but thin. It says nothing about whether unknown references error out, scoping/permissions, or payload size.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Terse to the point of omitting needed detail, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 at least names the returned fields, and annotations cover safety, so this is minimally viable. But for a lookup tool with an undocumented parameter and no error behavior described, an agent is left guessing on edge cases.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only partially does so: it gives the accepted reference formats 'module/name' or id. It does not clarify whether id is a UUID or numeric, case sensitivity, or what happens on a missing action.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (an action), and enumerates what is returned: script, inputs, return type. It is distinguishable from vro_run_action and vro_find_actions, but does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, holding it at 4 rather than 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?

No guidance on when to call this versus vro_find_actions (to locate actions) or vro_run_action (to execute one). The implicit reading is 'use this when you already know the action identity,' but that is never stated, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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