exact_get_action_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of context with 'public' and 'discovered', but it does not disclose behavior for unknown actions, error cases, or the expected return shape beyond 'schema'.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the verb, resource, and scope efficiently, which is appropriate for such a simple read-only lookup tool.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool, the description is minimally adequate given the annotations. However, because there is no output schema and parameter coverage is 0%, the description leaves the agent to infer important details about how to obtain an action name and what the returned schema looks like.

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 should compensate by explaining the meaning of the action parameter, but it does not. The qualifier 'public' hints at a constraint on valid actions, but the description does not state that action must be a discovered action name or explain how it relates to sibling tools.

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 states a specific action: return a discovered schema for a public Exact action. It is clear about the resource type (action schema) and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like exact_list_actions or exact_get_entity_schema, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, no mention of needing an action name from exact_list_actions, and no explanation of when it would be inappropriate. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling context.

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