get_app_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'input parameters, output fields, and credit costs', which gives some behavioral insight into the response format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and usage but lacks behavioral details like response format specifics or error cases, which are important for a tool that returns schemas.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'appId' clearly documented as 'The app ID' with examples. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action: 'Get detailed action schemas for a specific app' with verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed action schemas'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_apps' (which lists apps) and 'get_step_schema' (which might get step schemas), by focusing on app-specific action schemas with details like parameters, output fields, and credit costs.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: 'Use this to understand exactly what inputs an action needs when building workflow steps.' This implies it's for workflow construction, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'get_step_schema' might be related).

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