clio_get_custom_action

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company) but lacks explicit statements on idempotency, side effects, or that it's a read-only operation. The agent cannot infer safety or other behavioral traits.

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 at three sentences and front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary details but could be better structured with a clear purpose statement and parameter explanation.

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?

The description fails to mention essential context such as what identifies a custom action (e.g., ID), what the response contains (despite output schema existing), or any preconditions. For a 'get' operation, the agent lacks enough context to invoke it 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 0%, and the description only states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments' without specifying expected keys, value types, or constraints. The agent has no actionable information to construct parameters correctly.

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 retrieves a custom action, with the verb 'get' distinguishing it from create, delete, update, and list siblings. It also provides the platform tool name for additional clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_list_custom_actions or other get tools. The description does not specify the conditions for retrieval or prerequisites.

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