opencdr_ir_actions_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so "Read-only" merely restates structured data and earns no credit. The one genuinely additive piece is that results are limited to executed, rollback-eligible actions, but nothing is said about ordering, result volume, or pagination behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with the scope constraint stated first. The trailing "Read-only" is the only wasted clause, since annotations already establish it.

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?

There is no output schema, but for a simple read-only list tool the description conveys the essential filter (executed, rollback-eligible) and the safety profile is fully covered by annotations. The main gap is the absence of any pagination or result-shape hint, which matters given the two undocumented parameters.

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 0% and the description never mentions the two parameters (page_size, next_token). Their names are conventional enough that an agent can guess pagination, but the description adds no meaning about defaults, max page sizes, or token lifetime, leaving the schema to carry a burden it does not meet.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("IR actions") with a meaningful scope qualifier ("executed, rollback-eligible"), which implicitly separates it from the singular sibling opencdr_ir_actions_get. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being routed.

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 phrase "rollback-eligible" implies the use case (finding actions that can be rolled back), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as opencdr_ir_actions_get for fetching a single action's detail.

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