island_list_admin_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses useful behavior: results are newest first, and omitting both start/end triggers the server-side default window. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, response shape, or access/permission considerations, leaving parts of the call behavior unspecified.

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 with no filler. The purpose and key examples are front-loaded, followed by concise parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple list operation with four optional parameters and full schema coverage, the core call semantics are covered: scope, ordering, and time-window defaults. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the response shape or how limit/offset pagination works, so an agent must infer some behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that start/end bound the window and that omitting both selects the server-side default, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. Limit and offset are left entirely to the schema.

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 a specific action ('List actions taken by administrators') and the resource scope (Island Management Console) with concrete examples such as policy changes and user/role changes. It is distinguishable from siblings like island_list_devices, though it does not explicitly contrast with island_list_audit_events.

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 operational direction for the time window ('Use start/end to bound the window; omit both...'), but it does not explain when to choose this tool over island_list_audit_events or other siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so when-to-use guidance is mostly implied.

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