exact_list_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about live metadata discovery and exclusion of internal-looking actions, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or how the optional search parameter affects results.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the key exclusion rule. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 optional parameter, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits what the returned list looks like, how the search parameter interacts with the listing, and what qualifies as 'internal-looking,' which an agent would need for confident invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'search' parameter at all. While the parameter name suggests it filters results, the agent is left without information on whether it is a substring, prefix, exact match, or applies to action names only.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('public actions discovered in live Exact metadata'), and an explicit exclusion ('internal-looking actions are excluded'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like exact_get_action_schema, which retrieves schemas for specific actions rather than listing actions.

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 conveys the scope and filtering behavior of the tool, making it clear it is for enumerating public actions rather than inspecting a single action's schema. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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