get_action_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds the specific info fields returned, but it does not disclose error behavior or the exact return structure; the output schema covers the latter. This is adequate given the annotation.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the resource 'action', followed by three specific info fields. There is zero wasted text.

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 a readOnly annotation and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. For a simple read tool with one parameter, it is reasonably complete. It could mention missing-action behavior, but that is a minor gap given the structured fields.

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 must clarify the lone 'name' parameter. It does so by indicating 'an action' is the target, effectively mapping the string to an action name. It also hints at the returned data (frame range, channels, keyframe count), which helps parameter interpretation.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get info' and the resource 'an action', then lists specific details (frame range, channels, keyframe count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_actions (which lists actions) and get_keyframes (which retrieves keyframe data).

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 description implies usage when action-level metadata is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for using this tool over siblings like list_actions or get_keyframes. Since the context is clear but exclusions are absent, it meets only the implied usage baseline.

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