introspect_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a safe, read-only listing and discloses that arguments are included, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether results are paginated/complete. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded and the consumer tools are named second, so the agent gets the what before the why.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content; 'including their arguments' tells the agent it will get action names plus argument shapes, which is the key information for a discovery tool. It does not describe the response structure in any detail, leaving a modest gap.

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?

The tool takes no input parameters and the schema is a bare empty object, so the baseline is 4. There is no input semantics to clarify; the description's param-adjacent statement about returned arguments belongs to output, not input.

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+resource ('List all actions (mutations) available in this Gadget app') and adds the scope 'including their arguments', which separates it from model-listing siblings like list_models and introspect_model. It never names those siblings directly, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this to find action names and argument shapes for run_action, create_record, and update_record.' It routes the agent toward the write tools that consume this output. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., versus introspect_model for field discovery), so it stops at 4.

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