actiond_actions_list

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the baseline bar is lower. The description is consistent with these hints (listing is inherently read-only) but adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, pagination behavior, or side effects. Thus it meets but does not exceed the annotated baseline.

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 long and contains no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, output fields, optional parameter, and related tool guidance without any filler or unnecessary detail.

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 list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It mentions the output fields (so agents know what to expect), the default limit, and related tools for alternative use cases. No essential context 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 single optional parameter 'limit' is fully documented in both the input schema and the description, including its default value (20). Schema coverage is 100%, and the description reiterates the parameter's meaning, leaving no ambiguity about how to use it.

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 tool lists recent CI/CD jobs, includes the specific fields returned (id, repo, plugin_name, status, created_at, duration_ms), and explains the optional limit parameter. It also explicitly differentiates this from related tools, making its purpose 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use this for an overview; use actiond_action_get for one job's full detail, actiond_job_wait to block on a specific job, and actiond_diagnose for root-cause analysis of failures.' This clearly directs the agent to the correct tool for different scenarios.

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