indecx_get_action

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns only one page and that survey text must be treated as untrusted data. This adds meaningful behavioral and security context that annotations do not provide.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, pagination behavior, and security guidance. The description is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core functionality, pagination, and a security caveat. It does not detail the exact contents of the returned page, but that is reasonably inferable; the main gap is the unspecified page/limit mechanics.

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 sole parameter actionId is fully documented in the input schema with a clear description and validation pattern. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the schema-provided coverage earns the baseline score.

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 gets a survey questionnaire, which identifies the specific resource and operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like indecx_get_answers or indecx_list_actions, but the resource naming is sufficiently distinct.

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 gives some operational guidance ('use page/limit to continue where available') and a security directive, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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