Get Action Executions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Retrieves the history' aligns with these. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the history includes details about action runs, status, timestamps, and associated resources/instances. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not mention potential limitations like pagination or data retention.

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 efficient and front-loaded, with the first sentence serving as a clear summary. The second sentence adds some detail but contains redundancy (e.g., repeating 'action executions' and 'resources and instances'). It is not overly verbose, but it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Given the tool is a simple read-only getter with two required parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it retrieves, the filter scope, and the kind of information included. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handlen that. It adequately covers the context for this tool's complexity.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (resource_name and instance_name) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description's phrase 'filtered by resource and instance' merely restates the parameter names without adding new meaning, types, or constraints. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gets action execution history from Lifecycle Manager, with a specific verb ('get'), a specific resource ('action execution history'), and a scope ('filtered by resource and instance'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_jobs or describe_job, which target different entities.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The context of 'filtered by resource and instance' implies a use case but does not clarify when to choose this over related tools.

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