List actions (status is comma-separated)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and reach are covered. Beyond that the description only echoes the HTTP method and endpoint; it says nothing about default page size, pagination, ordering, or what happens when status/clientId/parentId are omitted. For a list endpoint where defaults drive the result set, that is a meaningful gap.

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 short and front-loaded, which is good, but its single informative clause duplicates the schema and the title, and it still leaves the tool underspecified. Brevity here reflects thinness rather than disciplined editing.

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 four optional parameters, 25% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining filter semantics and return shape and fails to do so. An agent cannot tell what a default call returns or how clientId and parentId narrow the results.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate for clientId, parentId, and limit — it does not. The one note it offers ("status is comma-separated") is already stated verbatim in the schema for the status property, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data.

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?

"List actions" names a specific verb and resource, and the GET endpoint confirms it is a read/list operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish it from the sibling actions_get, and the parenthetical mostly restates the title. An agent knows roughly what it does but not how it differs from the individual-action fetch tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus actions_get or other list tools such as audit_list or alerts_list. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of what the listing is scoped to (workspace, client, parent).

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