listPostCallActions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that each action carries an `id`, hinting at how update/delete siblings are targeted — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what an agent-less agent_id returns.

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 front-loaded sentence that carries the essential scope and return shape; the trailing '(Tags: Agents)' is metadata noise rather than content, but the body itself wastes nothing.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage, annotations carrying the safety profile, and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs. Only the return format (whether actions include trigger config, ordering) is left implicit.

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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents agent_id fully. The description's phrase 'on the agent' only restates that scoping without adding format or constraint detail, so the 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 (List) and resource (post-call actions) scoped to the agent, and notes each entry carries its own `id`. The verb naturally separates it from the add/update/delete siblings, though the description never names them explicitly.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (addPostCallAction, updatePostCallAction, deletePostCallAction) that an agent would need to choose between. The text only asserts what the tool returns.

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