get_run_actions

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation (get details) and specifies what data is returned (status, timing, trackedProperties). However, it does not mention any potential limits, pagination, or authorization requirements, which would enhance transparency. Still, given the simplicity of a get tool, a 4 is reasonable.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose, then add conditional guidance and an alternative tool reference. No unnecessary words.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description lists what the tool returns (status, timing, trackedProperties). Given the large number of sibling tools (41), this description provides enough context to differentiate. It could be improved by noting any default behavior or limits, but it is largely complete for a get-action-details 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds value by noting that workflowName is required for Standard SKU, which is not apparent from the schema alone. This extra context helps the agent select and fill parameters correctly.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('action execution details for a specific workflow run'), listing specific fields (status, timing, trackedProperties). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_action_io by noting what that tool does instead.

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 explicitly states a condition ('For Standard SKU, workflowName is required') and provides a clear alternative ('Use get_action_io to see actual inputs/outputs for an action'). This guides the agent on when to use this tool versus a sibling.

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