list_footswitch_actions

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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world, so the description's job is to add shape information, which it does: it discloses that the result set changes depending on whether `module` is supplied, that each operation carries an `enabled` flag, and that MIDI Out appears in the list but is unassignable here. That last caveat is genuinely non-obvious behavior not derivable from annotations or schema.

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 purpose and intent-to-consumer linkage are front-loaded in the first clause, with the two-call-mode behavior following. The final MIDI Out sentence is dense but earns its place as a trap warning; overall there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return formatting need not be described, and the annotations cover safety, so the remaining burden is usage and parameter behavior — both addressed. The only real gap is the exact contract for `module` values (free-form module name vs. label) for a tool with zero schema descriptions.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: `module` is described as an optional switch from a module listing to that module's operations, and `switch`'s valid range (1-6) is stated in prose rather than the schema. It doesn't say what happens for an out-of-range switch value or whether `module` must match a returned module name exactly, leaving a small gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List what footswitch 1-6 can control") and immediately ties it to its consumer, set_footswitch. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from get_footswitch_settings or get_footswitches without opening any 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?

It states the use case explicitly ("for choosing set_footswitch's arguments") and explains the two calling modes: no `module` returns assignable modules, with `module` returns that module's operations. It also flags that entries with `enabled` false are not currently selectable. No explicit when-not/alternative exclusion beyond the MIDI Out caveat, so it stops short of a 5.

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