hydra_list_actions

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

The description goes beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations by disclosing a critical runtime behavior: unknown actions are silently ignored and the step still counts as successful. This warning is essential for correct tool usage and is not conveyed by the structured 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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose and a critical warning with no extraneous filler. The primary function is front-loaded, and the warning earns its place by preventing a subtle failure mode.

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 no parameters, a read-only/idempotent annotation set, and an output schema present, the description provides everything an agent needs: a precise purpose and a vital operational caveat. Nothing important is missing for correct 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics, and it correctly does not invent any.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the actions usable in a workflow step of type action'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like hydra_list_operations or hydra_list_connectors. It names the exact context in which these actions apply, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool: before writing an action name, since unknown actions are silently ignored. It provides clear context that the agent should call this tool to verify valid action names prior to authoring a workflow step, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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