form_list_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds only the endpoint path, with no mention of pagination behavior, default page size, sort defaults, or what the response contains. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two short lines with zero waste and front-loaded purpose, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise. The bare endpoint line adds little and there is no structure for the unresolvable parameter questions.

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 paginated, sortable list endpoint with two undocumented filter parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the response shape, default ordering, and the meaning of runnableId/endpointLink. It does none of these, leaving the agent with clear gaps before calling.

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 coverage is only 60%: page, size, and sort are documented, but runnableId and endpointLink have no descriptions anywhere. The description provides no additional detail on these filter parameters or their semantics, so the agent is left guessing what runnableId and endpointLink constrain.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("List resource actions"), but "resource actions" is ambiguous in a sibling set that also contains form_list_resource_types, form_list_custom_resource_types, form_get_resource_action, and deployment_get_resource_actions. It does not clarify how this endpoint differs from those. The endpoint path hints at 'custom' resource actions but the plain-text statement doesn't disambiguate.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. An agent cannot tell from this description when to reach for form_list_actions versus form_get_resource_action or form_list_resource_types.

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