pmg_action_objects_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns all action objects with an 'editable' flag, and explains that non-editable objects are built-in and not modifiable via API. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, error conditions, or authentication details beyond the config requirement.

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 highly concise, with two clear sentences and a brief API path line. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words or details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: resource type, scope (all objects), read-only nature, and config requirement. It lacks error handling or pagination details, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the 'Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config' line, which indirectly elaborates on the prerequisite for the proximo_target parameter, but this is partially redundant with the schema's explanation of the multi-target config. No additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 it lists all PMG RuleDB action objects, including non-editable ones, which precisely defines the resource and operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pmg_ruledb_rule_actions_list, which lists actions attached to rules, missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other action list or detail tools). There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice, leaving the agent without comparative context.

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