Getting details of a specific endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety. Description adds that output is raw and struct-form, but lacks details on output schema behavior (e.g., what 'raw' means, how 'compactor' affects output). With annotations carrying the main burden, description adds minimal extra 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?

Four sentences, but repetitive: 'Raw automation-script output struct.' and 'Getting details of a specific endpoint.' and 'Gets details about the automation instance...' repeat similar ideas. Could be consolidated into two sentences. No wasted words, but not maximally efficient.

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?

Output schema exists but is not shown; description does not explain return structure. Lacks details on pagination, error handling, or what 'raw output' precisely includes. Mention of permission is good, but overall completeness is adequate given schema coverage but not thorough.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds no significant parameter-specific meaning beyond schema descriptions. The 'verbose' parameter's 'Skip per-item compactor' is not explained further, and response_format default is mentioned. Acceptable but not enhanced.

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 clearly states the tool gets raw automation-script output for a specific endpoint, distinguishing it from the curated sibling action1_get_automation_output. It specifies the resource (automation instance applied to endpoint) and includes permission requirement.

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?

Explicitly recommends using action1_get_automation_output for filtered stdout, providing a clear alternative. Does not cover other similar tools like get_automation_results, but the primary distinction is made.

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