list_actions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the safe, read-only nature. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('lists all actions') but does not elaborate on output format, potential limitations, or other behavioral traits. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but adds little beyond them.

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, short sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it appropriately concise for a straightforward list operation.

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 tool's low complexity, absence of parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description is essentially complete. It states the operation and scope ('in file') without needing to describe return values. However, it lacks any usage context, which slightly lowers the completeness score.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not add parameter details, but none are needed.

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 'Daftar semua action di file' clearly states the tool lists all actions in the file, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('actions'). It distinguishes itself from other list_* tools by naming a unique resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on when to select this tool.

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