List rule actions (global)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the cross-rule-type scope, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result volume, or authentication beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the optional filter detail. It could be marginally tighter but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the operation and filter scope adequately; the only real gap is the absence of an explicit pointer to the sibling ticket-scoped list tool for disambiguation.

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 100%, so every parameter (range, fields, format, rules_id, expand_dropdowns) is already documented in the schema. The description only reiterates the rules_id filter and its applicability across rule types, adding marginal value beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 rule actions) and even names the underlying endpoint GET /RuleAction, so the operation is unambiguous. The parenthetical 'works for any rule type' hints at the distinction from glpi_list_rule_ticket_actions, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is only implied.

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 gives a usage signal via 'works for any rule type: RuleTicket, RuleChange, RuleMailCollector', which implies when this global tool is the right choice. However, it never states a when-not condition or names glpi_list_rule_ticket_actions as the ticket-scoped alternative, leaving the routing decision partially to inference.

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