list_action_plans

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the schema: it overrides the default limit to 100 (FUB's max) rather than the API's default of 10, and it instructs on pagination behavior using _metadata and offset/next cursor. It also discloses the deprecation status. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but the pagination and default-override details are valuable.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then the default behavior, then pagination, then deprecation warning. It's a bit long but every sentence earns its place—the deprecation warning and pagination guidance are critical for correct usage. The emoji warning is a minor stylistic choice but doesn't hurt clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (7 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the key operational details: default limit, pagination, and deprecation. It doesn't describe return values, but with no output schema, that's a minor gap. The deprecation context is especially important for an agent deciding whether to use this tool at all. It's complete enough for an agent 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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds context about the limit default (100 vs 10) and pagination, but doesn't add much per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'Get a list of Action Plans' with the endpoint (GET /actionPlans). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the deprecation and recommending automationsPerson tools for new workflows, which helps an agent understand its specific role among the many list_* tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it notes the deprecation of Action Plans, states that Automations are the current recommended mechanism, and explicitly says to prefer create_automations_person and update_automations_person for new workflows unless the user names an existing legacy Action Plan. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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