pddl_get_available_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns action names and arguments from the current state, suggesting a read-only query. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is side-effect-free, idempotent, or non-destructive. For a planning tool, this omission could lead an agent to assume mutation.

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 two sentences long and contains zero filler. Every word adds value: it states the action and the output in a front-loaded, scannable structure. Perfectly concise for a simple query tool.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should adequately explain the return value. It states 'action names and arguments' but does not specify format (e.g., list of strings, objects with fields) or behavior in edge cases (e.g., empty state, invalid state). For a tool in a planning domain, the description is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity.

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, so the description correctly implies no input is needed. The parameter coverage is 100% vacuously, and the description adds value by confirming that no arguments are required. A higher score would require additional context about default behavior, but for zero parameters this is sufficient.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('all actions that can be executed in the current state'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pddl_execute_action (which executes) and pddl_get_current_state (which returns the state), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 in a planning context (getting possible actions before execution) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use this tool or prerequisites like needing an initialized PDDL state. The guidance is only implicit.

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