form_get_action_runnable_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the endpoint path, which duplicates the annotation title, and says nothing about what the 'runnable item' contains, size, or any permission requirements.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the endpoint. It is efficient, though the endpoint line largely restates the annotation title rather than adding new information.

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 and one of two parameters undocumented, the description needs to explain what a 'runnable item' is and what the flag changes. Instead it supplies only the route, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'id' is documented merely as '(path)' and 'includeCrResourceActions' has no description at all. The description provides zero parameter guidance, so the undocumented boolean — whose effect on the response is non-obvious — is left entirely ambiguous.

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 names a verb ('Get') and a resource ('resource action runnable item') plus the HTTP endpoint, which pins down the API surface. However, 'runnable item' is unexplained jargon and there is no differentiation from nearby siblings such as form_get_resource_action, form_get_action_form, or form_generate_elements_runnable_item.

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?

No statement of when to call this instead of the many adjacent form/resource-action getters. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no named alternative — the agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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