get_marvis_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the kind of information returned (prioritized issues and fixes), which is good, but it omits any details about response format, pagination, default behavior without org_id, or whether the list includes all statuses by default. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 sentences, no filler. The primary action and resource are in the first few words, and the second sentence provides a practical usage hint. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 conveys the core functionality and the nature of the output well, especially for a read-only list tool with no output schema. It could mention whether it returns all issues by default or only open ones, but given the schema annotations and sibling context, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the status parameter: 'Pass status="open" for active items only' clarifies what 'open' means and suggests a common usage. org_id is not elaborated beyond the schema, but the schema already provides a clear description.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource ('List Marvis (AI) suggested actions') and clearly differentiates this tool from sibling report/alarm tools by explaining it provides Mist's prioritized view of what's wrong and recommended fixes. It mentions concrete examples of issues (offline switches/APs, firmware, ports, RF/DFS), making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: "Use for 'what's wrong with my network?'" and provides a concrete filtering tip (status='open' for active items). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or point to alternatives like get_alarms or get_offline_access_points, so it falls short of a 5.

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