List Alert Actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states results are constrained by the authenticated user's permissions and that it lists both standard and custom actions, which gives useful context about scope and security. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, though the verb 'list' strongly implies this.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the tool's purpose and scope, then lists the returned fields, gives a usage tip, and closes with output and security notes. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the structure makes it easy to skim.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs for correct invocation: it lists the return keys ('alert_actions' array and 'count'), explains why to call it (before create/update with custom actions), and notes permission constraints. No critical information is missing for this list operation.

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 there are no parameter meanings to explain. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0 params. The description appropriately devotes no space to parameters and instead focuses on outputs and usage context.

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 states the tool lists alert actions installed on the connected Splunk instance, including custom actions, and enumerates the returned fields. This is a specific verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does. It inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_triggered_alerts or list_saved_searches by naming the resource.

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 explicitly instructs when to call this tool: before create_alert or update_alert when using a custom action, so the correct action name and param keys are passed. This gives a concrete condition and references alternative tools, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus other actions.

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