list_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that action histories can be large and that limit/page/since/before/fields should bound them, which is genuine behavioral insight. It says nothing about read-only semantics, ordering of results, default page size, or what the response contains, leaving meaningful gaps for an 11-parameter read tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the usage condition comes first and the parameter-strategy clause follows. It is tight and readable, though enumerating parameter names that are already fully documented in the schema is mildly redundant.

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?

For an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers when to use it and how to bound results but not the expansion flags (member, memberCreator) or what an action object looks like. It is adequate against a fully documented schema, but an agent still needs the schema open to call it correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter already has documentation, making 3 the baseline. The description groups the bounding parameters (filter, limit, page, since, before, fields) by intent, which adds light strategic framing, but it omits any mention of member/memberCreator/memberFields/memberCreatorFields and adds no format detail beyond the schema.

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 concrete purpose — auditing recent activity or comments scoped to a single list — which implicitly identifies the resource being listed and separates it from board-wide or card-level action tools by the 'for a list' scope. It does not explicitly name a verb like 'list' or contrast against board_actions/card_actions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use when auditing recent activity or comments for a list' gives a clear triggering scenario, and the follow-on clause on bounding large histories tells the agent how to call it responsibly. No explicit when-not or named alternative is offered, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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