List ticket rule actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the parent/child framing (actions are sub-items of RuleTicket); it says nothing about pagination behavior, response shape, or permissions, but an output schema exists so return details are less critical.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and the parenthetical disambiguation of the resource hierarchy is the only extra and it earns its place. Zero filler.

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?

Annotations, a full-coverage schema and an output schema carry most of the burden, so the terse description is workable. The missing piece is sibling differentiation (list_rule_actions vs this tool), which an agent would need in order to pick correctly.

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 range, fields, format, ruleId and expand_dropdowns are fully documented in the schema. The description implies the required ruleId via 'a specific ticket rule' but adds no format or usage semantics beyond that, matching the baseline 3.

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 (List) and resource (actions of a specific ticket rule), and the 'sub-items of RuleTicket' gloss clarifies the hierarchy. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling glpi_list_rule_actions, leaving the agent to infer which one applies.

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 no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. With near-identical siblings such as glpi_list_rule_actions and glpi_list_rule_ticket_criteria present, the agent receives no routing signal.

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