Get zone action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns status and result, which is useful behavioral context. It does not go beyond that, but for a simple get-by-ID operation this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the purpose without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does and why an agent would use it (check status/result). It does not specify the exact return format, but that is often unnecessary for a simple get, and the sibling list tool covers broader listing.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with a description for action_id ('ID of the action') and its type/constraints. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing the ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the 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?

Uses specific verb 'Get' plus resource 'single zone action by ID' and clearly states its purpose 'to check its status and result'. This directly distinguishes it from sibling list_zone_actions, which would be used for multiple actions.

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 context: fetch one action by its ID to check status/result, which is a natural complement to list_zone_actions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action_id parameter and singular 'a single zone action' make the intended scenario clear.

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