list_recovery_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it largely delivers by revealing the domain stakes ('push a remote in-app update to users stuck on a broken release') and surfacing the complete status enum. It stops short of disclosing list behavior such as empty results for no matching version, pagination, result ordering, or error handling, which would push it to a 5. The 'List' semantics are consistent with a read operation, so there's no contradiction with the absence of annotations. Importantly, the description doesn't just describe the tool's behavior — it reveals the underlying purpose of the resource it manages, which is valuable context for the agent.

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 sentences totaling roughly 70 words deliver purpose, return fields, status enums, domain context, and sibling-workflow guidance with zero fluff. The structure front-loads the verb+object in the first four words, and each 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential ground: what it returns (statuses, timestamps, targeting), why it exists (recovering users on broken releases), and the prerequisite steps (confirm crash rates/errors first). Given the low complexity (2 params, simple list operation), the description is complete for an agent to select and correctly use the tool. The 100% schema coverage further fills any remaining gaps.

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% (both package_name and version_code have rich type descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'targeting a version code' merely reinforces what the schema already explains about version_code. No parameter-enriching semantics are added beyond what the schema provides, and none are strictly needed given the schema's clarity.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource and scope: 'the app recovery actions targeting a version code,' and enumerates the return fields (appRecoveryId, status, targeting, timestamps). The status enum (DRAFT, ACTIVE, CANCELED, GENERATION_IN_PROGRESS, GENERATION_FAILED) adds precision that differentiates it from sibling listing tools like list_releases. This is a specific verb+resource+scope construction that clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly guides when to use this tool: 'use query_crash_rate and search_error_issues first to confirm which version is broken,' naming two concrete alternative tools and establishing the workflow ordering. The implication is clear — this tool is for after the broken version is confirmed. This is exactly the kind of explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance the rubric rewards.

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