Get automation endpoint-results overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope fact that results are rolled up per endpoint rather than raw output, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what a rollup contains. Adequate, not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scoping statement and then the disambiguation. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves little room for the routing detail an agent actually needs.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What's missing is disambiguation from the densely similar automation-family siblings and a note on what 'instance' refers to, which matters in a catalog of this size.

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%, so instance_id, org_id and the response_format enum are already documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond that (e.g. that instance_id is an automation instance id rather than an endpoint id), so baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (per-endpoint result rollup) and scope (for an instance), which is more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of a clear verb and doesn't differentiate from close siblings like action1_list_instance_endpoint_results or action1_get_automation_status, which an agent could easily confuse with this.

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?

Names one alternative with its selecting condition: 'Use action1_get_automation_output for stdout.' That is genuinely useful routing, but there is no guidance on when to use this instead of action1_get_automation_status, action1_list_instance_endpoint_results, or action1_wait_for_automation, all of which sit in the same workflow.

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