VPS_getActionsV1

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

The description discloses that this is a read-only retrieval of action history, with examples of fields (name, timestamp, status). No annotations are provided, so the description adequately covers the behavior, though it omits details on pagination or rate limits.

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 concise, with three brief paragraphs that front-load the purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

The description mentions return fields (action name, timestamp, status) and implies pagination via the page parameter. It lacks explicit details on ordering, filtering, or limits, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (virtualMachineId, page). The description does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves actions performed on a virtual machine, listing examples (starting, stopping) and emphasizing history viewing. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling VPS_getActionDetailsV1 which likely retrieves a single action's details.

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 explicitly advises using this endpoint for viewing VPS operation history and troubleshooting. It does not mention when to avoid it or contrast with other tools, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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