fetch_assessment_available_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the return type (List of actions with fields and optional error) but does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, or potential failures beyond an error message. The description is adequate but lacks depth, such as whether the fetch modifies state or requires specific permissions.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then gives a usage guideline, and finally specifies parameters and return format using clear sections (Args, Returns). No redundant information.

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's simplicity (one parameter, well-defined return structure), the description covers all necessary information: what it does, how to use it, what output to expect, and the relationship with 'execute_action'. The output schema is present, so detailed return documentation is not required from description alone.

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 description adds bare minimum parameter info: 'Args: - name (str): Assessment name'. This adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's type and default. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only repeats the parameter name and type without format, source, or constraints.

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: 'Get actions available on assessment for given assessment name.' It specifies the verb (fetch), resource (assessment actions), and scope (by name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fetch_evidence_available_actions' and 'fetch_available_control_actions' by explicitly targeting assessment-level 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 provides clear workflow steps: 'Once fetched, ask user to confirm to execute the action, then use 'execute_action' tool...' This tells the agent when to use this tool (before executing) and how to proceed afterward. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for different action types.

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