continuum_list_actions

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

readOnlyHint=true is confirmed by 'Read-only' (consistent, no contradiction), and the description goes beyond the annotation by explaining the semantics of the 'outcome_unresolved' flag and the consequence of ignoring it before resuming. It does not cover ordering, pagination, or volume of results, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose first, the key output field semantic second, the safety profile last. No filler or restated title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be described, and the one behavior an agent must understand (the unresolved-outcome flag) is explained. Minor gaps remain: result ordering/pagination and whether the list is complete or filtered are unstated.

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 description never mentions run_id, so nothing is added about the single required parameter or what a valid run identifier looks like. The parameter is largely self-explanatory by name, which prevents a 1, but the description makes no compensating effort for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List external side effects recorded for a run') with a clear scope bounded by the run_id parameter. That verb alone separates it from the mutation-heavy sibling set (compensate, reconcile, confirm, fail), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that unresolved outcomes 'must be reconciled before resuming' hints at a pre-resume inspection workflow and indirectly at continuum_reconcile_action, but the tool is never named as an alternative and no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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