List Server Actions

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about the kinds of actions returned ('power changes and rebuilds'). However, 'all actions' sits in mild tension with the pagination parameters (page, per_page), which could mislead an agent into expecting one complete unfiltered response.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core action and scope come first, followed by a compact clarifying example. Every word 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and strong safety annotations, this is nearly complete. The main gaps are the ambiguity between 'all actions' and the paginated nature of the response, and the absence of any description of the returned action objects since no output schema exists. Minor, but worth a small deduction.

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 100%, so id, page, sort, status, and per_page are all already documented with clear descriptions. The description adds only marginal value by illustrating what kinds of actions exist (power changes, rebuilds), which indirectly informs what the status filter means. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('actions for a specific server'), and concrete examples ('power changes and rebuilds'). The 'for a specific server' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from hetzner_list_servers, hetzner_get_server, and the family of other list_X_actions tools by scoping it to server action history.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusions provided. An agent must infer from the name that this is the right tool among the many list_X_actions siblings (firewall, volume, network, zone, etc.) and must figure out on its own that this returns action history rather than current server state.

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