list_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers unusually well by disclosing the exact return shape (id, service, summary, read-only/destructive flag, JSON input schema). It also states the scoping constraint that only configured services' actions appear. It does not confirm the operation is side-effect free, nor mention result limits or pagination for a potentially large listing.

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?

Four dense sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, return fields, query usage, default/scope behavior. The purpose leads, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of return fields is essential and present, and the configured-services limitation is called out. It leaves open how large result sets are bounded (pagination, truncation) for an unfiltered list-everything call.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds real value on top by giving concrete keyword examples for `query` and by clarifying that omitting both filters is equivalent to listing everything — behavior the schema does not express.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Search/list available actions across configured services') and even enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly name its siblings list_services or execute_action, so the differentiation from execute_action is only implicit in the word 'list'.

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?

Gives concrete usage instruction plus examples: search via `query` with samples like 'restart container', 'dns record', 'proxy host', and the default of omitting both filters to list everything. It never states when to reach for a sibling tool instead (e.g., list_services to enumerate services, execute_action to run one), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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