Get Action Details

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds minimal context by specifying 'executed action,' implying retrieval of past actions, but lacks details on response format, error handling, or authentication needs, offering only basic value beyond annotations.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core purpose ('Get full details'). It efficiently communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple read tool with good annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what 'full details' include (e.g., fields, structure), and it lacks context on error cases or dependencies, leaving gaps in completeness for agent invocation.

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%, with the parameter 'action_id' fully documented as 'Resource ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing guidance. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a specific executed action'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_list_actions' (which likely lists multiple actions) or 'dual_get_batch' (which might retrieve batch details), missing an opportunity for clearer distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an action_id from a previous operation) or compare it to similar tools like 'dual_list_actions' for browsing actions or 'dual_get_object' for related data, leaving usage context unclear.

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