cascadeur_list_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful context about 'curated' actions and 'verification status', which goes beyond the structured annotations. However, it doesn't explain what verification status means or any other behavioral nuances like performance or filtering 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It leads with the verb and resource, then lists the relevant categories. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and all words add information.

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 a tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: it never explains how the 'query' parameter behaves, and 'verification status' is not elaborated. An agent cannot fully determine correct usage without additional inspection, making the description incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 only parameter, 'query', has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not mention it at all. There is zero added meaning about how query filters results, what format it expects, or whether it matches action names, categories, or status. The agent receives no help understanding this parameter.

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 curated menu actions and enumerates specific categories (physics, AutoPosing, retargeting, cycles, playback, visual review). The verb 'List' plus the resource 'menu actions' makes the purpose evident and distinguishes it from action-running or inspection siblings, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_action or inspect_tool. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or situations where a sibling would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer.

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