list_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'poll/wait for create/delete results,' which hints at asynchronous operations and potential delays, but it doesn't specify pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with two clear parts: the core functionality and usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose. There's no redundant or verbose language.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on pagination behavior, return format, error conditions, and the semantics of unmentioned parameters. While the usage guidance is strong, it doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and parameter context needed for effective tool invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'id' and 'status' as filter options, ignoring 'sort', 'page', and 'per_page'. This leaves three parameters (60% of total) without any semantic explanation, failing to adequately supplement 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('actions'), and specifies optional filtering capabilities ('filter by id, status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_action' by indicating it returns multiple items with filtering options rather than retrieving a single specific action. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all list_* siblings beyond the action domain.

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 provides explicit usage guidance with 'use to poll/wait for create/delete results,' which clearly indicates when this tool should be employed. This distinguishes it from other list tools that might be used for general inventory purposes, and it suggests an alternative pattern (polling/waiting) rather than immediate retrieval.

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