List Recycled Actions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral details: pagination control via page/per_page, filterability, and that the response includes pagination metadata. It also discloses the API endpoint. This goes beyond annotations to clarify the method's behavior.

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 concise with four sentences covering purpose, usage, pagination, and required inputs. However, it contains redundancy (pagination mentioned twice) and the conflation of actions with incidents adds noise. Overall, it is adequately sized but not optimally structured.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves gaps. It fails to describe the output structure beyond a vague 'paginated JSON array of Incidents' (incorrectly naming Incidents instead of Actions). The filter parameters are only implied, and the response format is not detailed. Given the complexity, more context is needed for complete understanding.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description reiterates the required project_id, optional incident_id for scoping, and page/per_page for pagination, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. It implies filtering but does not detail the filter parameters.

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 Recycled Actions for a project or incident, but then says it returns a paginated JSON array of Incidents, creating confusion between actions and incidents. While the verb and resource are identifiable, the inconsistency with the endpoint path (recycle_bin/incidents/actions) and the mention of 'Incidents' as the returned object 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 gives context on when to use: to enumerate Incidents with pagination and filtering, and to find IDs. It mentions required project_id and optional incident_id. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling 'list_recycled_*' endpoints, such as list_recycled_incidents.

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