list_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently indicates a read-only listing operation, scopes results to visible windows, and enumerates the reported state fields. It does not overstate or hide 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 one information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and packs the relevant scope and output details efficiently.

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 simple optional-pid input schema, the existence of an output schema, and the straightforward read-only behavior, the description covers everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly. No critical context is missing.

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 single parameter pid is already fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, including its default, purpose, and when it is required. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all QActions (menu items, toolbar actions) in visible windows' and specifies the returned fields (name, text, shortcut, enabled/checked state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like trigger_action, which executes actions, and get_widget_tree, which explores the widget hierarchy.

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 the tool is for discovering available UI actions and their current state, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or that trigger_action should be used to invoke actions. This is adequate but relies on inference.

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