action_history

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that it shows various statuses (submitted, pending, etc.), which provides some behavioral insight but nothing about authentication, rate limits, or how 'recent' is defined. It adds modest value beyond 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?

The description is very concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose, and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

The description explains the simple parameter and return type. However, it omits details like how 'recent' is defined (timeframe?), and no output schema is provided to clarify the return format. For a read-only list tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'limit' parameter: 'Maximum actions to return (default 20).' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's mere existence.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'recent Control actions with their status', making it specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'action_status' or 'audit', though the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., action_status for a single action, audit for overall history). The description does not exclude any contexts or mention when not to use it.

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