get_run_actions

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the default behavior of following inputs/outputs links for failed actions, which an agent cannot infer from structured data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Per-action breakdown... debugging view') and the behavioral detail is delivered efficiently in the second sentence.

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 a moderate 5-parameter surface with full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and no output schema required, the description explains the purpose and the key default behavior. Nothing essential an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter (runId, flowId, includeIO, actionName, environmentId) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'failed actions by default (or a named action, or all)' mirrors the includeIO enum already present in the schema, adding little semantic value beyond it.

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 states a specific resource ('per-action breakdown of one run') with an explicit framing ('the debugging view'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_flow_runs (which returns the run list) and get_flow (single flow definition) — this tool drills to the action level of one run.

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 'debugging view' label implies when to use it, and the action-level scope contrasts with the run-level siblings. However, no alternative is named explicitly and there's no when-not-to-use guidance, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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