hcloud_get_server_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds deprecation status, which is genuinely useful behavioral context not in annotations, but it omits what the default wait=true polling does or how the action lifecycle behaves.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the deprecation warning placed high where an agent will see it. The opening 'Get an Action for a Server' is slightly redundant with the following 'Returns a specific Action object for a Server' sentence.

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 no output schema, the description leaves the Action object's contents (status, progress, error, command) entirely unexplained, and it does not point at a deprecation replacement. For a simple two-ID getter the essentials are present, but a deprecation with no successor named is a notable gap.

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 100%, so all three parameters including the wait/polling flag are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get an Action for a Server', 'Returns a specific Action object for a Server'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the many near-identical siblings such as hcloud_get_action, hcloud_get_servers_actions_id, or hcloud_get_load_balancer_action, all of which read as interchangeable without opening schemas.

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 Deprecated notice with a changelog link is an implied 'prefer something else' signal, which is real usage guidance. But it names no replacement tool and gives no condition under which this getter is still the right choice versus hcloud_get_action or hcloud_get_servers_actions_id.

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