list_ui_actions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds the behavioral requirement of SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true. However, it does not disclose other aspects like rate limits, pagination details, or impact of not filtering by table. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence, very concise with no wasted words. However, it could be front-loaded with the most critical information (e.g., listing what UI actions are) and structured for scanning.

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 list tool with 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and a broad sibling list, the description is minimal. It does not describe what information is returned, default behavior when no table is specified, or how filtering works across the parameters. Leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's full capabilities.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond 'for a table' which maps to the table parameter. The purpose is clear from schema, and description adds no extra semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the action (list) and resource (UI actions) with examples in parentheses, and specifies the scope (for a table) and a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true). It is distinct from sibling list tools like list_ui_policies or list_business_rules, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

Provides a condition (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_ui_policies or other list tools. No comparative context given.

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