conversation_ai_list_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as pagination behavior, response format, or any side effects. It provides no value beyond what annotations already state, and therefore scores low on this dimension.

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, tightly worded sentence with zero waste. The verb 'List' is front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is concise and well-structured for an efficient scan.

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 simplicity of the operation (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks any detail about the response or any filtering options. A simple list tool might be sufficiently described with this, but the absence of any mention of pagination or the nature of the actions returned leaves some ambiguity. It is complete enough for a trivial case but not robust.

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 0% and the description does not compensate. The only parameter, agentId, is not explained beyond its name. The phrase 'for an Agent' hints at the purpose, but there is no detail about format, whether it is required, or any validation. With low coverage, the description should add more semantic meaning but does not.

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 "List Actions for an Agent" clearly states the verb (list), the resource (actions), and the context (for an agent). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like conversation_ai_get_action_by_id (which retrieves a single action) and conversation_ai_create_action (which creates actions) by using the plural 'Actions' and the 'List' verb. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used to retrieve all actions for an agent as opposed to getting a specific action via conversation_ai_get_action_by_id. There is no explicit or implicit comparison to other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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