List action cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the main behavioral aspects. The description adds context about the unified status semantics (pending/accepted/dismissed/resolved) and the current/future sources, which is useful beyond the annotations but not critical.

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 two sentences, directly to the point, with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, scope, and status semantics.

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 presence of an output schema and the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the tool's cross-source nature, the unified status semantics, and the current source. No critical information 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?

The schema covers the only parameter (status) with 100% description coverage, including an enum. The description further clarifies that statuses use unified semantics, so the meaning of the parameter is fully explained.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'ActionCards', and explicitly differentiates it as a cross-source, unified action inbox. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like suggest_list, which are source-specific.

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 implies when to use this tool (for a unified, cross-source list) versus source-specific alternatives, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions such as 'use this instead of suggest_list for a consolidated view'. Still, the cross-source and unified phrasing provides adequate guidance.

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