call_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it usefully establishes the mental model that side effects are identical to pressing the UI button/menu item, which tells the agent this is a mutating, state-changing call. It omits failure behavior for unknown keys, whether the action is synchronous, and what is returned, so significant gaps remain for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation, mechanism, and behavioral analogy are all packed into one clause with nothing wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must do more: it never says what happens on an invalid key, whether the UI must be idle, what the call returns, or how to enumerate action keys. For a two-parameter trigger tool with an undocumented required parameter, this is insufficient.

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 only 50%: settle_ms is documented in the schema, but 'key' has no schema description and the description does not explain its format or how to discover valid values (e.g., via the list_actions sibling). 'By key' only loosely links to the parameter without adding usable syntax.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: trigger a Cascadeur action identified by key via ActionManager.call_action. That identifies the operation precisely and implicitly separates it from raw UI tools like ui_click/ui_invoke, but the description never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

'Exactly like its toolbar button or menu item' implies a semantic-level alternative to clicking through the UI, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance against siblings such as ui_invoke, ui_click, or run_python, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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