list_input_actions

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It does not state that the tool is read-only, nor does it explain pagination via max_results or scope (e.g., whether it lists all assets in the project or within a directory).

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 two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists return fields. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more precise about parameters.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema (though return fields are listed), the description does not sufficiently cover behavior, parameter details, or usage context. It lacks completeness for an agent to use it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It mentions filtering by 'name and path' which maps to 'filter' and 'path' parameters, but it omits 'recursive' and 'max_results' entirely, leaving their purpose unclear.

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 tool lists UInputAction assets with optional filtering, distinguishing it from generic asset listing tools. However, it mentions 'name and path' filtering while the actual parameters are 'filter' and 'path', causing slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_assets or get_input_action. The description does not mention alternatives or context for usage.

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