Get Action Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the result is an authoring schema scoped to one step type, but otherwise restates 'Read-only' and does not disclose error behavior for invalid types; the enum parameter largely mitigates that gap.

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?

Four sentences cover purpose, usage, alternative, and required argument with minimal waste. 'Read-only' and the parenthetical 'also enumerated in this tool's inputSchema' are slightly redundant with annotations and schema, but the description remains compact and front-loaded.

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-only lookup tool, the description is fully adequate: it states what the return value is, when to call it, how it relates to siblings, and which argument is required. No output schema exists, but the description's mention of 'label, description, required and optional fields' covers the expected return content.

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% and the single `type` parameter has an enum plus a descriptive comment, so the schema carries most of the semantic load. The description adds the cross-reference to list_action_types and clarifies that the argument is required, but it mostly reinforces what the schema already states.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the authoring schema ... for ONE Action Script step `type`'. It distinguishes itself from list_action_types (enumerates every type) and get_capability_bundle (whole contract at once), so an agent knows exactly what scope this tool covers.

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?

Gives explicit invocation context: call after list_action_types when authoring/fixing a specific step and needing exact field names before validate_script. Also names the alternative get_capability_bundle for the whole contract, so the agent can route between siblings without guessing.

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