inspect_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It leads with 'Read-only,' a clear safety signal, and details what the call returns in terms of history components. It does not mention failure modes or permissions, but for a simple read operation the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 well-formed sentences with no wasted words. The most critical behavioral fact ('Read-only') is front-loaded, followed by the resource detail and then usage guidance. 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 single-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description provides enough detail about what will be returned and when to use it. It lacks error-handling notes, but the tool is simple enough that the description is complete for correct selection and invocation.

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 100% and the schema already explains where action_ids appear (receipts and list_pending_approvals). The description adds only the context of when to use it, not additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('one action's whole history') and enumerates exactly what is covered: proposal, policy decision, approval, effect outcome, and receipt. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming receipts and stats as alternatives for browsing and totals.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use this when you know which action you care about' and contrasts it with 'use receipts to browse, stats for totals.' This is concrete and directly actionable, leaving little ambiguity about which tool to select.

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