recent_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides almost none: it does not state that the call is read-only, whether it is scoped to the current session, ordering of results, or what happens when fewer than n actions exist. The mention of 'result codes' hints at return content, but an output schema already covers that.

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?

It is a single short sentence fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise: it lacks a verb and reads like a caption. Front-loading is fine but there is too little content to front-load.

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 is simple (one optional integer parameter) and has an output schema, which lowers the bar, but the description still leaves core questions open: what counts as an action, in what order results are returned, and whether the call is safe/read-only. For a diagnostics-style tool in a robot-control suite this is thin.

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% for the single parameter 'n', and the description does add the meaning that n is the count of returned actions, plus that each carries a result code. It does not state the default, the maximum, or whether n counts from the most recent action.

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 fragment 'The last n actions with their result codes' identifies the resource (actions) and one returned field (result codes), but it is not a complete verb+resource statement and does not define what an 'action' is in this robot-control domain. An agent can infer it is a history/log query but cannot distinguish it confidently from siblings like get_scene or get_workcell, which also retrieve state.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether actions must have occurred first), and no reference to any sibling as an alternative. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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