actions_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the return content ('action names and descriptions'), which is the key behavioral trait for a discovery tool, but it says nothing about permissions required for 'admin' actions, whether results are static, or any rate/side-effect profile. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 core purpose front-loaded and the routing hint immediately after; nothing is redundant or 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?

There is no output schema or annotation block, and the description compensates by naming what is returned (action names and descriptions). For a zero-param listing tool the remaining gaps are minor (permission/scope context, whether other resource families have equivalent tools).

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter explanation is needed or missing.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'List available admin actions for Article.' It also contrasts cleanly with the sibling action_article, which executes the actions this tool enumerates, so an agent can distinguish the discovery tool from the execution tool without opening either schema.

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 names the alternative explicitly ('can be executed via action_article'), giving a clear discovery-then-execute workflow. It stops short of stating an explicit condition or exclusion (e.g. 'use action_article directly when you already know the action name'), so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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