Api chat agent actions list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral — 'optimized data into the serializer context' is an internal implementation note, not useful context about return shape, pagination, or filters. It does not contradict the annotations, but it earns almost no credit above 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?

It is a single short sentence and front-loaded, but that brevity comes at the cost of any useful content — the one sentence that is there is an internal note rather than a description of the tool.

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 11 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only annotations covering safety, the description is far too thin. It provides no filter semantics, no pagination behavior, and no sense of what the response contains — an agent could not invoke this confidently from the description alone.

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?

There are 11 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Fields like 'kind', 'state', 'agent_run', 'target_content_type', 'ordering' and 'max_pages' are completely opaque; the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 sentence describes an internal implementation detail ('override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than what the tool does. It never states that this returns a list of chat agent actions, nor how it differs from siblings like chat_agent_actions_retrieve or chat_agent_actions_object_retrieve. An agent reading only this would not know what resource is being listed.

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 when-to-use guidance, no distinction from siblings (e.g. object_retrieve or the other list endpoints), and no mention of prerequisites. The content is a Django override note, not user guidance.

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