run_project_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'bounded output, bounded timeout' which hints at constraints but does not disclose specifics like what happens on timeout, whether the action is destructive, or if any state changes occur. Insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single concise sentence with front-loaded purpose and parenthetical constraints. Every word adds value, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate section for constraints).

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately conveys the core purpose but is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or the precise meaning of 'bounded'. Leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 80%, so baseline is 3. The description only references the action_id parameter ('by id') and does not add meaning to other parameters like timeout_sec, max_output_chars, include_output, or project. No additional value over schema.

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 verb 'run' and the resource 'discovered project action', with the qualifier 'by id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'discover_project_actions' which discovers actions, not runs them.

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 after discovering actions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_impacted_tests' or 'ts_execute'. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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