km_get_action_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool gets XML without mentioning read-only status, potential errors (e.g., invalid index), or side effects. This is minimal transparency for a retrieval tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The key point (get XML definition) and the indexing convention are 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?

The tool is simple with no output schema, but the description does not specify the return format (e.g., string, XML document). Given the sibling tools, this is adequate but could be improved by mentioning what the output looks like.

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 both parameters described. The description adds that actions are 1-indexed, which mirrors the schema's description for actionIndex. Thus, it provides little additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves the XML definition of a specific action within a macro, and notes that actions are 1-indexed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like km_get_macro_xml (macro-level XML) and km_get_trigger_xml (trigger-level XML).

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 for obtaining action XML but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., km_list_actions, km_set_action_xml). It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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