get_app_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes execution conditions ('filterCond') in Kintone query syntax, which adds useful behavioral context beyond a basic 'get' operation. However, it doesn't cover other traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format details (e.g., pagination). The description adds some value but leaves gaps for a read operation.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently state the purpose and a key behavioral detail (inclusion of filterCond). It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from response details.

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's moderate complexity (retrieving app action settings), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the core purpose and a response detail (filterCond), but lacks information on authentication, error cases, or full response structure. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (app_id and optional lang with enum values). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param details in the description.

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: 'kintoneアプリのアクション設定を取得します' (gets action settings for a Kintone app). It specifies the verb '取得します' (get/retrieve) and the resource 'アクション設定' (action settings). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_app_acl' or 'get_app_customize', which also retrieve app-related configurations but for different aspects.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing app permissions), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'update_app_actions' (which modifies actions) or other 'get_app_*' tools. Usage is implied only by the action-focused context, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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