get_action_binding

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only' and adds 'No approval needed'. It also discloses the return contents (full Action proto with arguments, icon, timeout, ACL fields), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then a concise mention of return details. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: it fetches a single binding, lists return fields, and notes no approval is needed. The output schema handles return structure details.

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 0% for the single parameter binding_id. The description only says 'by ID', which adds no meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not explain where to find the ID or any format constraints, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('OliveTin action binding') with scoping by ID. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_olivetin_actions by indicating it fetches a single binding. The mention of the RPC name and return type reinforces the purpose.

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 when to use: when a single action binding is needed by its ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear. Since it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of list_olivetin_actions', it lacks an explicit exclusions statement, aligning with a score of 4.

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