action_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that results may be "retained" (historical), but says nothing about whether it blocks, what happens for an in-progress action, auth requirements, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler. However, the terseness comes at the cost of the usage and parameter detail the tool actually needs, so it reads as under-specified rather than optimally structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations, an undocumented required `action` parameter, and no usage guidance, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool.

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 33% and the required `action` parameter has no description in either place. The description adds a useful hint for `run` (absolute vs. negative-relative), but leaves the required parameter and the run/runtime relationship unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Return ... action result"), which cleanly separates it from action_list, action_run, and action_cancel. It does not explicitly differentiate from action_info, which plausibly overlaps, so it stops short of a 5.

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 use this versus action_info, action_list, runs, or wait. The phrase "current or retained" implies post-completion retrieval but gives no exclusion or precondition for choosing it.

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