list_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only discloses that keys are 'found in the UI' and come 'with labels'. It says nothing about whether the result is exhaustive or scoped, whether hidden actions are omitted by default (only implied by the schema's include_hidden), or whether this requires a live Cascadeur UI session.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the example format appended where it is most useful. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description needs to do more: it never characterizes the two filter parameters or the shape of returned entries (actionId + label is only hinted at). For a discovery tool meant to feed call_action, the missing linkage and filter semantics are real gaps.

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 0%, so both parameters ('query' and 'include_hidden') are undocumented anywhere. The description never explains what the query string matches against (key path, human label, or both) nor what counts as a hidden action, leaving the agent to guess at filtering behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Cascadeur action keys (actionId)') and even supplies a concrete example value ('Commands.Rig mode.On') plus the presence of labels, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling call_action, but the 'list vs. call' distinction is inferable from the name and example format.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer a different sibling (e.g. calling an action directly via call_action), or what prerequisites exist for the UI to be present. The pairing with call_action is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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