list_ida_actions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. 'List all registered IDA UI actions' clearly implies a read-only, safe operation with no side effects. The description does not explicitly state safety or non-destructiveness, but the verb 'list' is strongly indicative. For a zero-parameter tool, this is mostly transparent.

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 a single 12-word sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word is necessary and no extraneous information. It is an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers what the tool does and how it relates to a sibling tool. An agent can correctly infer the tool's function and output without additional 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?

The input schema has zero parameters (empty properties) and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). No parameter details are needed. The description adds no parameter info because none exist; this is perfectly 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 it lists 'all registered IDA UI actions' that can be used with 'run_ida_action'. The verb 'list' and specific resource 'registered IDA UI actions' make the purpose precise, and the mention of the sibling tool provides differentiation.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool: to discover actions for 'run_ida_action'. It does not explicitly exclude other contexts or compare with sibling listing tools (e.g., list_functions), but the context is clear and sufficient for an AI agent. A slight deduction for lack of explicit 'when not to use'.

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