Actions List Actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds value by disclosing server-side filtering and enumerating returned fields, and read-only behavior is implied by 'List.' However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or any limits beyond the schema's existing limit parameter.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and account context, then efficiently covers filtering and return fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity read-only list tool with an output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description is largely complete. It provides return fields and filter semantics, though it omits pagination and ordering behavior; these are minor gaps given the output schema and simple parameter set.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents status and priority_id, including allowed status values and the UUID type. The description mostly restates this information rather than adding new semantic meaning, though it does clarify that filtering is applied server-side.

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 actions from the Mitti (formerly SafetyCulture) account.' It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like actions_get_action (single action), actions_create_action, and actions_update_action_status by focusing on listing and filtering.

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 makes the use case clear: listing actions with optional server-side filtering by status or priority_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the listing/filtering context is unambiguous among the sibling set.

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