Get Tools Actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect transparency. The description adds the provider scoping but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any operational behavior, so it contributes little beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is zero redundancy, making it extremely concise and 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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits what a 'tool action' consists of and does not explain the return value or how provider_identifier is resolved. With no output schema, a bit more context would help, but the minimal description may be sufficient for a trivial listing operation.

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%, with all three parameters (app_id, tool_source, provider_identifier) described in the schema. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics or validate the meaning of 'provider_identifier' beyond the schema.

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 'List available tool actions for a provider' clearly identifies the verb (List), resource (tool actions), and scope (for a provider). It distinguishes from generic tool-listing siblings by specifying the provider scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like lyzr_list_tools or lyzr_get_all_tools. There are no exclusions or preconditions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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