B3TR: Actions for an app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the tool is clearly safe and idempotent. The description adds the API endpoint but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, response structure). It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states purpose and endpoint; the second provides critical usage guidance. It is front-loaded and compact.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters including pagination controls (page, size, after, before, direction). The description covers the required appId resolution but omits guidance on how to use pagination or filtering. Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the pagination parameters are not discussed, leaving a gap for a complete usage context.

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 coverage is about 67% (descriptions for appId, after, before, direction; page and size lack descriptions). The description amplifies the appId parameter by explaining how to resolve it from a human-readable name, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not compensate for the missing descriptions on page and size, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches B3TR actions for a VeBetterDAO app via a specific API endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getB3TRActionsForUser by focusing on a single app's actions. The mention of resolving appId from app-hub clarifies its scope.

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 states that appId is required and provides guidance: if a human-readable app name is given, call getAppHubApps first. This is a clear usage instruction. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool in favor of alternatives, which would make it a 5.

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