explain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a passive, read-only introspection tool by describing its output and stating it does not access web pages. It could be more explicit about not modifying anything, but the wording strongly implies a non-destructive 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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose. The first sentence details the output, and the second provides usage guidance and a key distinction from sibling tools. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns (the action directory, capabilities, and definitions) and what it does not do. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately without further clarification.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies since no parameter information is needed. The description adds no parameter details, but that is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 returns the server's action directory, including available actions, required capabilities, and short descriptions. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from web-content tools by stating it does not read, summarize, or explain web pages, which sets it apart from sibling tools like get_page_text or narrate.

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 explicitly says to use it to learn what you are allowed to do in this session, providing a clear use case. It also gives an exclusion ('does not read, summarize, or explain web pages'), which implies when not to use it, effectively steering users toward alternative tools for web content tasks.

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