aps_compute_attribution_action_ref

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (hex sha256) and conceptual role (anchor for axis projections), but it does not mention side effects, error behavior, or input prerequisites. For a seemingly pure computation, the lack of explicit 'no state change' or failure-mode information is a gap, but the essential behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence provides value: what it does, what action_ref is, and a practical use case. No fluff or redundancy makes it appropriately concise.

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 4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and output but leaves the input structure wholly undocumented, forcing the agent to guess how to form a valid action tuple. This is a significant gap for a tool that depends on precise parameters.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters (agentId, actionType, params, nonce). It only vaguely references an 'action tuple' without mapping the tuple components. The meaning of nonce, structure of params, and nature of agentId/actionType are left entirely to inference, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 function: 'Derive the action_ref (hex sha256) for an action tuple.' This is a specific verb ('derive') and resource ('action_ref'), with additional context about it being a content-addressed anchor. It distinguishes from sibling tools like aps_construct_attribution_primitive by focusing on the hash computation rather than the full primitive.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for indexing primitives by action without constructing the full primitive.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to use this tool, implying a niche between construction and projection. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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