slide_list_audit_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only listing operation, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already includes. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the listing purpose, but that is acceptable for a simple enumeration tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the relationship to another tool. There is zero fluff or redundancy. Every word contributes value.

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 enumeration tool with only pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what it returns and why the returned values matter. It could optionally mention that the list is paginated or that no other dependencies exist, but the schema already covers pagination. Overall, an agent can successfully use this tool with the given information.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters (limit, offset, sort_by, sort_asc) with descriptions and defaults. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to these parameters, but it doesn't need to because the schema thoroughly explains them. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra parameter insights.

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 verb ('List'), a clear resource ('full set of audit action names'), and connects to the sibling tool's filter ('usable in slide_list_audit_logs' audit_action_name filter'). This distinguishes it from audit log list or resource types tools. An agent can immediately understand what this tool returns and how it relates to other tools.

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 explicitly points to the context where this tool's output is used (the audit_action_name filter of slide_list_audit_logs), making the intended use obvious. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like slide_list_audit_resource_types, but the reference to the specific filter provides clear contextual guidance.

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