boond_actions_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not specify whether it returns the full object, handles missing IDs, or requires special permissions. This leaves significant uncertainty for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It is not tautological and does state the core operation, but it does not front-load any additional context or provide a logical flow. It is minimally adequate for a simple getter.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not mention the response shape, potential errors, or side effects. For a simple read tool, this is a notable gap; an agent cannot fully predict the outcome without additional knowledge.

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 already describes the sole parameter 'id' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, such as format constraints or usage nuances. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 'Get an action by ID' clearly states a verb (Get), a resource (an action), and the key identifier (ID). It distinguishes from siblings like boond_actions_search, create, update, and delete by specifying a direct fetch operation. However, it does not elaborate on what an action is or what the response contains, slightly limiting clarity.

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 like boond_actions_search. There is no mention of scenarios (e.g., when you already have the ID) or exclusions (e.g., use search when filtering). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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