Get Action Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful authorization constraint ('Status is scoped to the computers the configured operator can see') and the underlying endpoint, but it never explicitly states this is a read-only operation or how per-computer state is aggregated, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then a memorable usage framing, then the scoping caveat. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the quoted framing sentence is more colloquial than informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, the operator-visibility scoping, and a usage cue. With no annotations, a bit more behavioral detail (read-only confirmation, per-computer result shape) would round it out.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents action_id as a 'BigFix action ID.' The description's endpoint path ('/api/action/{id}/status') loosely ties {id} to action_id but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 an action's per-computer execution state') and pins the scope to per-computer state, which differentiates it from the sibling get_action (action-level metadata). It doesn't name get_action/list_actions explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 framing 'The "did my change actually work" tool' gives real usage context (post-deployment verification). However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or routes the agent to the obvious alternatives (get_action, list_actions), so routing is left to inference.

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