Get Tracker queue autoaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful domain context: an autoaction 'periodically applies its actions to every issue matching its filter/query', explaining the resource's behavior and why the schedule/filter fields matter. Pagination and auth behavior remain unstated.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource. The middle sentence is explanatory rather than filler, though it could be trimmed for a get-tool whose output already implies the periodic behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (filter/query, actions, schedule, run stats) and by pointing to the logs tools for history. Nothing critical to a correct invocation is missing, though error/permission behavior is not mentioned.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there (queue key or numeric id; numeric action id), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only says 'by id' without clarifying the queue_id/action_id pairing or the case-sensitive queue-key format, adding no meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One queue autoaction by id') and enumerates what it returns (filter/query, actions, schedule, run stats), which cleanly separates it from the autoactions_logs_* siblings. An agent can identify this as the config-fetch tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the run-history need to autoactions_logs_list (summaries) and autoactions_logs_get (per-issue outcomes), which is concrete alternative guidance. It stops short of stating when this tool itself should or should not be used versus e.g. tracker_triggers_get, but the context is clear.

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