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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does say this is a listing operation and mentions the returned information, which suggests a read-only action. It does not address pagination, ordering, empty results, authorization, or whether 'existing and suggested' are returned as separate categories.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main operation is front-loaded, and the return-value sentence adds useful information without 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core purpose and a brief return summary. However, there is no output schema and no annotation context, so the vague 'brief readiness' and the lack of any mention of alternatives or parameter details leave minor but real gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented promptId parameter. The tool name and the phrase 'includes a prompt' make the parameter's role reasonably clear, but the description never explicitly states that promptId selects the prompt whose actions will be listed, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('existing and suggested actions whose stored evidence includes a prompt'), and the return content ('action status and brief readiness'). This filter by prompt evidence distinguishes it from siblings like devtune_get_actions, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you have a promptId and need actions whose evidence involves that prompt. However, there is no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it or how it compares with alternatives such as devtune_get_actions or devtune_get_action_brief.

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