Get Redux Actions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It states it returns data but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or non-destructive. However, the name 'get_actions' implies safe retrieval, and no side effects are mentioned. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, front-loads purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema, yet the description does not specify the structure of returned actions or history. Lacks details on format (e.g., array of strings, objects) or behavior when includeHistory is false. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand the response.

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 schema describes the single parameter 'includeHistory' with a clear description and default. The tool description adds no further meaning, so scores at baseline given 100% schema coverage.

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 returns available actions and optionally dispatched history. It distinguishes itself from siblings like redux_dispatch_action and redux_get_state by focusing on action listing and history retrieval.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. Does not mention that it is ideal for inspecting available action types before dispatching or for debugging dispatched actions, nor does it exclude cases where history is not needed.

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