stellar_cache_actionlog_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It flags the feature as experimental, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, what happens if the ID is missing, caching semantics, or return shape. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

One short sentence with the core action front-loaded and a parenthetical caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is minimal enough that it could have carried one more useful clause.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of what 'action details' are returned or where the ID comes from, the description leaves notable gaps for a tool whose output is entirely undescribed.

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 100% and there is a single required 'id' parameter already documented as 'ID of the cache entry to read'. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Read cached action details'), and the 'by ID' phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling stellar_cache_actionlog_list. It does not explicitly name the list alternative, but an agent can infer the read-one-vs-list distinction from the resource wording.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never says when to call this versus stellar_cache_actionlog_list, nor what preconditions (e.g., a prior actionlog list call) exist. Usage is only implied by the name.

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