get_available_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 and does so well on behavior: it discloses that invisible conditions are evaluated with the web client's own evaluator, results reflect the record's current field values, and it enumerates the return shape. It omits permission/auth requirements and rate-limit behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the evaluation mechanism, then the return fields. Efficient overall; the return-field enumeration is worth its space given no output schema exists.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully explains the return fields and the evaluation semantics, which an agent needs to interpret results. It remains incomplete on parameter semantics and usage routing, but the behavioral coverage is solid for a read tool of this complexity.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'A specific record' loosely implies record_id, but model and the optional action_id are never explained—action_id in particular is entirely opaque in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('buttons and actions') with a clear scope qualifier ('for a specific record right now, based on its current field values'). An agent can distinguish this record-scoped action query from the model-level get_model_actions, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Describes what the tool mirrors but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to alternatives like get_model_actions, get_record, or execute_action. The agent must infer the usage context from the description alone.

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