ghl_conversation_ai_get_action_by_id

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it names the required OAuth scope conversation-ai.readonly, gives the endpoint path, and describes what the response contains (action configuration, associated agents, and performance metrics). It does not cover error behavior or missing-action semantics, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the retrieval purpose, then adds useful return and scope details, followed by endpoint metadata. The repeated title line 'Get Action by ID' is slightly redundant, but the remaining content is tightly structured and each block serves a clear purpose.

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 read-only lookup with full parameter schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies enough context to call the tool correctly. It identifies the scoped OAuth permission, the endpoint, the supported action types, and the main return fields, and no output schema exists that would require additional return-value explanation.

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%, so both actionId and agentId are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions retrieval by unique identifier and the endpoint confirms that both agentId and actionId are path parameters, but it does not add semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieves detailed information about a specific action using its unique identifier. It also clarifies that the tool supports both classic actions and the customApi type, which gives useful scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this lookup from sibling tools such as ghl_conversation_ai_list_actions or ghl_conversation_ai_get_agent_actions.

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 that this tool is used to fetch one action by ID, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like listing actions or getting an agent's actions. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions.

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