actions_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's contribution is the important caveat that allowlist membership does not imply runtime availability, which prevents a false positive from an agent. It says nothing about return shape, ordering, or whether the list is static or session-dependent.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the caveat second — no waste. It is arguably terse to the point of cryptic ("documented native action allowlist" is unexplained jargon), which keeps it off a 5.

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 zero-required-param listing tool with no output schema, an agent still lacks the return shape (action names only, or names plus descriptions/parameters?) and how `query` filters it. The caveat about non-verification is valuable, but the definition stops short of telling the agent what it will actually receive.

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 0% and the single optional `query` parameter is not mentioned at all in the description, so its meaning, matching behavior, and expected value type are undocumented everywhere. With one param and no schema text, the description needed to carry this and does not.

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 description names a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("native action allowlist"), so an agent knows this returns a list rather than executing anything. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling action_run, so the read-vs-execute split is inferred rather than stated.

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 precondition, and no named alternative such as action_run or native_tools_list. The only guidance-adjacent clause ("presence is not runtime verification") is a caveat about interpreting the result, not a signal for selecting this tool.

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