List Actions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds pagination details and the API endpoint, but the inaccurate claim of returning Incidents rather than Actions undermines transparency and could mislead the agent about the output structure.

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?

The description is relatively concise at about four sentences, front-loading the main purpose and key parameters. While it includes some redundant technical details (API path), it avoids excessive verbosity and maintains a clear structure.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description mentions pagination metadata and a JSON array, but it incorrectly specifies Incidents instead of Actions, omitting the actual structure of Action objects. For a tool with multiple optional filters, the description could better explain the response format and the relationship between Actions and Incidents.

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% with thorough parameter descriptions. The description only highlights pagination controls (page, per_page) and the required project_id, adding marginal value over the schema. It does not detail filter or sort parameters, but the schema already covers them.

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 states it returns a list of Actions for a project and mentions use cases like enumeration and filtering, providing a clear verb-resource mapping. However, it later contradicts itself by saying it returns 'a paginated JSON array of Incidents,' which creates confusion about the actual resource. This inconsistency reduces clarity.

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 advises using the tool for paginated overviews, finding IDs, and filtering, which offers some guidance. However, it does not mention when to avoid using this tool or provide alternatives (e.g., list_incidents for incident-level listing), leaving the agent without comparative context among many sibling list tools.

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