get_action_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It describes the output contents and a validation behavior (rejection of invalid enums), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention rate limits or authentication needs. The description implies safety through its preparatory nature but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 two concise sentences, with the first sentence listing the tool's outputs in a front-loaded manner and the second providing immediate usage context. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool has 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the return value comprehensively (parameters details, returns, pricing, example_params). It also addresses the usage sequence. However, it could mention potential errors or prerequisites beyond invalid enums, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (engine, action). The description does not add any specific meaning beyond the schema's property names; it only says 'for ONE engine action' without explaining what values engine or action can take. This is insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 that the tool retrieves full details for one engine action, listing specific elements like parameters, returns, pricing, and example_params. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as a preparatory step before call_engine, and from get_engine_schema or get_catalog which are broader in scope.

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 explicitly advises 'Call this right before call_engine so you send valid params', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also warns about invalid enum values being rejected, which helps the agent avoid errors. No alternative tools are mentioned but the context strongly differentiates this from siblings.

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