hcloud_get_servers_actions_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — notably it never discloses that the default `wait=true` will poll the action until success/error or timeout, which is a meaningful behavioral trait for a 'get' tool. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is fair but the polling behavior should have been surfaced.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the verb and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what an Action object contains (status, progress, error, resources) and what the polling `wait` flag returns on timeout. Neither is covered, leaving an agent unable to interpret the result or predict blocking behavior.

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 both `id` and `wait` are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond it — no explanation of where an action ID comes from or what `wait` means in practice. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('Get an Action', 'Returns a specific Action object'), so the basic operation is clear. However, the description does not distinguish it from the many near-identical siblings (hcloud_get_action, hcloud_get_server_action, hcloud_get_servers_actions, hcloud_get_load_balancers_actions_id), and it never clarifies that this is the server-scoped action endpoint. An agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the get-action variants to pick.

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 on when to use this tool versus the ~10 sibling action-retrieval tools. No prerequisites, no mention that an action ID is typically obtained from a prior mutating call (e.g. hcloud_get_servers_actions), and no exclusions.

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