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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the two-mode behavior (list by plugin versus fetch one by id), but says nothing about result size, pagination, or whether triggers are included in each mode. Useful, but thin beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

A single sentence with the listing mode stated first and the detail mode second, plus the motivating use case at the end. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema annotations and no output schema, the description covers both modes and the downstream purpose of the returned ids. It could mention what fields come back or whether triggers and actions are returned together, but nothing that blocks a correct call is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already documents filter values, identifier mapping, and the optional fields column list. The description's parenthetical 'filter=getAllActions, identifier=<pluginId>' essentially restates the schema rather than adding new examples or constraints, so 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List a plugin's actions and triggers') and also covers the single-item detail mode, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not differentiate against the closest sibling, list_action_versions, which could look similar to an agent scanning a tool list.

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?

It supplies a concrete use case ('Use it to find an actionId'), which gives the agent a clear trigger for calling it. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming alternatives such as list_action_versions for versioned data.

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