aps_compute_attribution_action_ref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the output type (hex sha256) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or safety. As a computation tool, it's presumably read-only, but this is not stated. The description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second provides context and use case. Every word is impactful, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It explains the output but not the input parameters or their roles. A more complete description would detail how agentId, actionType, params, and nonce form the action tuple.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 4 parameters. The description does not explain any parameter (agentId, actionType, params, nonce) beyond referring to them as an 'action tuple'. It fails to add meaning to the schema, leaving users to infer parameter roles from names alone.

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 explicitly states the tool derives the action_ref (hex sha256) for an action tuple. It explains the concept of action_ref as a content-addressed anchor and notes its utility for indexing primitives without full construction, differentiating it from sibling tools like aps_construct_attribution_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 indicates this tool is useful for indexing primitives by action without constructing the full primitive, implying it's for scenarios requiring only the ref. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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