call_foreman_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite ('Needs Foreman API resource to be available') but doesn't describe what the tool does beyond 'call an action', such as whether it performs read/write operations, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise with two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. There's no wasted text, but it could benefit from more detail given the complexity implied by the parameters and lack of annotations.

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 complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to structure parameters, or provide enough context for safe and effective use. The prerequisite hint is insufficient for a tool that likely performs API operations.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description doesn't add any meaning to the parameters (resource, action, params) beyond what the schema titles imply. It doesn't explain what 'resource' or 'action' refer to, or what 'params' should contain, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states the tool 'Call an action on a Foreman API resource', which provides a clear verb ('Call') and resource ('Foreman API resource'), but it's vague about what 'call an action' specifically entails. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'fetch_foreman_dsl_docs' or 'get_foreman_api_resource_docs', which appear to be documentation-related, but the distinction isn't explicitly stated.

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 includes 'Needs Foreman API resource to be available', which implies a prerequisite but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when-not-to-use or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving usage context unclear.

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