What ActionLayer can do, as prose. Read this when you're deciding whether ActionLayer fits the user's request, or when you're picking which entry point to call. The response is a single 'description' field — there is no catalog of typed actions to enumerate, by design.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the response is a single 'description' field and that no action catalog exists, which goes beyond the structured 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?
Two short sentences cover purpose, usage timing, and response shape with no filler. The core statement is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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 parameterless, read-only meta-description tool with annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. No essential information is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully empty with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add.
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 tool's purpose: return a prose description of ActionLayer's capabilities for deciding fit and choosing an entry point. It explicitly disambiguates from the literal 'list_actions' meaning by stating there is no catalog of typed 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 gives explicit situations to use the tool: when deciding whether ActionLayer fits the request or when picking an entry point. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling set makes the distinction between this meta tool and action-executing tools inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
