action_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the verb. Read-only semantics are only implied by 'List'; scope (project-scoped via the server's starting project), pagination, and result ordering/limits are unstated.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and qualified by the filter. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the runtime parameter's scope is covered in-schema. However, with no annotations and a terse description, the agent gets no statement of read-only safety, project scoping defaults, or result volume limits.

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 50%: the 'runtime' parameter is documented in the schema, while 'owner' is bare. The description compensates for 'owner' by stating it filters by exact match and is optional, but adds nothing about runtime scoping or matching syntax beyond what the schema already says.

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+resource ('List actions') and the optional filter dimension ('exact owner'), so the agent knows this is the read/discovery tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like action_info, action_run, or action_result, though the list-vs-single/exec verbs make the distinction reasonably inferable.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by exact owner' implies usage (use when you want a broad listing or a per-owner subset) but never states when to prefer this over action_info or action_result. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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