get_action_executions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by stating that the history includes 'status, timestamps, and associated resources and instances', which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is strictly read-only, any pagination limits, or permission requirements, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a brief elaboration on the returned details. Every sentence contributes to the tool's understanding without redundancy or unnecessary fluff.

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 tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and an output schema available, which reduces the need to explain return values. The description covers the purpose, filters, and key return content (status, timestamps, resource/instance association), making it adequate for selecting and invoking the tool correctly. Minor omissions like pagination or sorting are not critical given the output schema.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both required parameters ('The instance name' and 'The Lifecycle Manager resource name'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics by framing them as filters, but does not elaborate on format or specific resource types beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'action execution history from Lifecycle Manager', with an explicit filter 'by resource and instance'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_action or get_jobs, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving history filtered by resource and instance, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives such as run_action or get_jobs. The context is clear enough for the intended use, but no exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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