list_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the read-only operation and the returned fields (name, steps, creation date), which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, the effect of the limit parameter, or any authorization requirements. These are common expectations for list operations, but the lack of detail holds the score to a midway point.

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 a single, economical sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a useful parenthetical and output field list. No superfluous words or redundancy, perfect for quick parsing.

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?

The tool is simple, but without annotations or an output schema the description should be more comprehensive. It covers the core purpose and a sample of returned fields, yet omits mention of limit/pagination behavior and does not offer guidance compared to sibling list tools. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent.

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 schema fully describes the single optional 'limit' parameter with a default of 50, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification about parameter usage, effectively relying entirely on 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 clearly states the action: 'List PostHog event actions' and adds the clarifying parenthetical 'custom event definitions' to distinguish from raw events. It also mentions the returned fields (name, steps, creation date), making the purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from sibling tools like list_events.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_events or list_persons. The phrase 'custom event definitions' implies a use case, but there is no direct statement of conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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