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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include action status and 'brief readiness', which is useful return-value context given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, completeness limits, or what 'existing and suggested' means operationally.

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?

Two compact sentences with the scoping filter front-loaded. The phrase 'brief readiness' is slightly ambiguous but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is close to sufficient, but it leaves the only parameter undocumented and gives no sense of result shape beyond two named fields.

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 required promptId parameter, so the description carries the full burden and only alludes to 'a prompt' without explaining the expected prompt identifier form or what happens with an unknown id. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('actions') and narrows scope to actions whose stored evidence includes a prompt. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from devtune_get_actions or devtune_get_agent_picks_actions, so the filter's function is clear but the differentiation is only implicit.

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 statement of when to use this instead of the broader devtune_get_actions or the agent-picks variant. The prompt-scoped filter hints at the use case, but no alternative is named and no exclusion is given.

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