actiond_actions_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds that results include failure statuses and can be filtered client-side, but does not elaborate on side effects or ordering guarantees. Given the annotations cover the core behavioral attributes, this is adequate.

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, direct, and free of redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides useful sibling-tool guidance without 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?

The description names the returned fields (id, repo, plugin_name, status, created_at, duration_ms) and statuses, and mentions the default limit. There is no output schema, so this covers the main contextual needs. It does not mention maximum allowed limit or pagination, but for a list-overview tool this is sufficient.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is fully described in the input schema (maximum number of actions to return, default 20). The description reinforces this by mentioning the optional limit and its default value. Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds the default value context.

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 executed by ActionD, using the specific verb 'list' and identifying the resource ('actions'). It also differentiates this tool from siblings by pointing to actiond_action_get for full detail, actiond_job_wait for blocking, and actiond_diagnose for root-cause analysis.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('for an overview') and when to use alternative tools ('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 leaves no ambiguity about selecting the appropriate tool.

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