list_available_actions

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions 'actions currently possible' and 'session's access', but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the action list is mutable, how session access is determined, or if the tool performs any side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief to adequately inform the agent, lacking critical details about usage and parameter.

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?

With 26 sibling tools in a complex domain, the description provides insufficient context. Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain what 'available actions' means or how it relates to session access, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 sole parameter 'node_ref' is required but not described in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent gets no help understanding what 'node_ref' expects or how to format it beyond the parameter name.

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 identifies the tool as listing actions possible for a component given session access. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_action' or 'verify_action', which reduces clarity.

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 alternatives. Without any context on when to choose 'list_available_actions' over siblings, the agent lacks decision support.

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