list_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's genuine additions are the inclusion scope (Multi Action, Toggle Action, plugins staged for install), which usefully signals that unstaged/installed-only plugins won't appear. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size for what could be a large list.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core scope statement is front-loaded before the inclusion caveat. Every clause carries information an agent can use.

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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and rich annotations, the description only needs to supply scope and inclusion nuance — which it does. The one remaining gap is result behavior (ordering/pagination/volume) for a potentially long action list.

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 all three filters (query, plugin, controller) are already documented inline, and the return-schema fields are covered by the output schema. The description does not add filter semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 actions that can be placed on keys or dials") and enumerates the returned fields (name, plugin, uuid, controllers, states), plus names two built-in action types and staged plugins. Purpose is unmistakable, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling describe_action, which is the natural confusion point in this toolset.

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?

"Actions that can be placed on keys or dials" implies the use case (discovering assignable actions, presumably before set_key), but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus describe_action or find_plugins, and no exclusions. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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