Get zone action

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the action has a 'status and result' which can be checked, giving some behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose error behavior, response shape, or whether the action is asynchronous, which prevents a higher score.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the operation and object, followed by the purpose. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one well-documented parameter, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description provides enough context for selection and invocation. It mentions checking status and result, hinting at the response content. It could be more explicit about return values or error cases, but this is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with the action_id parameter described as 'ID of the action', so the schema already carries the meaning. The description simply refers to 'by ID', adding no further semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('zone action'), scoped to a single item by ID. It also conveys the purpose ('to check its status and result'), which distinguishes it from list_zone_actions and other create/update/delete operations.

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 the tool is for retrieving a single zone action by ID, which is appropriate when you have an action ID and need its status or result. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'by ID' phrasing and sibling listing make the usage context clear enough.

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