get_action_request_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that actual HTTP calls, headers, status codes, and timing are shown, and retries are included. However, it does not mention safety, authorization needs, or any side effects, which would improve transparency.

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 sentences: first states purpose and scope, second adds a usage condition and typical use case. No redundant information, and key details are front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned (HTTP call details). It also notes a SKU-specific requirement. However, it could mention pagination or response size limits to be fully complete for a history retrieval 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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema; it only reiterates the workflowName requirement. With complete schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: HTTP request/response details for connector actions, including retries. It focuses on debugging API failures, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_run_actions or get_action_repetitions.

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 mentions a condition (workflowName required for Standard SKU) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear for debugging, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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