action_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. "Describe" weakly implies a read, but there is no statement about side effects, permissions, or runtime resolution behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, so it is maximally brief and front-loaded. That brevity, however, comes at the cost of substance, leaving key specifics unstated rather than merely compressed.

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 described, and the runtime parameter is covered by the schema. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but the cryptic OWNER/ACTION format and absence of any usage context leave minor gaps.

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 50%: runtime is documented in the schema but action has no description anywhere. The "OWNER/ACTION" phrasing adds a format hint for the action parameter that the schema lacks, which is genuinely useful, but it does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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?

"Describe" is a specific verb and the resource is an action, with "one" signaling a singular lookup versus the sibling action_list. However, "exact OWNER/ACTION" is cryptic shorthand and does not clearly explain what an OWNER/ACTION identifier is or how this differs from action_result, which is only inferable from the name.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as action_list or action_result. The singular "one" weakly implies lookup of a specific action, but the agent must infer the selection logic entirely.

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