whodb_platform_ontology_action_executions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: result ordering, what the returned rows contain, and the fact that passing a workspace does not alter session defaults. It stops short of noting truncation/pagination behavior beyond the limit param.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and how it is ordered, followed by the targeting caveat. 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so ('status and result summary', ordered newest first). Required inputs and workspace resolution are covered by the schema and its pointers to hosts/orgs/projects tools, so only minor gaps (empty-result behavior, limit cap) remain.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented, and the schema itself notes that host 'Does not change the default host.' The description's workspace sentence largely restates that at the tool level, adding little parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('List recorded behavior action executions for one record'), plus ordering ('newest first') and payload ('status and result summary'). This separates it from sibling execute-style tools like whodb_platform_action and the preview sibling whodb_platform_ontology_action_preview.

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 'for one record' phrasing implies the two required keys, and the workspace sentence explains per-call targeting versus session defaults. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the neighboring preview tool, so usage must be inferred.

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