explain_action

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description consistently uses 'Get' and 'explain', confirming readonly behavior. It adds value by detailing what the return includes (memories, policy, audit trail) and the cloud requirement, though it could further specify any idempotency or safety details.

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 well-organized with a clear opening sentence, a descriptive paragraph, and a clear parameter list. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise by combining the return explanation and parameter list into fewer sentences.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, prerequisites, and return format, leaving no gaps for an AI agent to understand invocation.

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 description explains the only parameter 'action_id' as 'The action UUID to explain', adding meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates, providing clear semantics for the required input.

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's purpose: 'Get the full causal chain for a Control action.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'causal chain', which is distinct from sibling tools like action_history or audit.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Novyx Cloud') and outlines what the return contains, offering clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like action_history or audit, missing a comparative usage note.

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