List Actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating optional filtering. It does not describe the response format, pagination behavior, or any side effects, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, extremely concise. It is front-loaded with the core action and filtering options. While concise, it could be more structured by separating pagination detail, but there is no wasted content.

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 has 17 parameters, no output schema, and no explicit return value description, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the meaning of 'actions', the response structure, or pagination behavior. Sibling tools exist but no guidance is provided. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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% (all 17 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions filtering by collection, type, and pagination, which maps to a subset of parameters, but does not explain pagination-related parameters like index, nValues, sortColumn, etc. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides parameter documentation.

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 the tool lists actions with optional filtering, using a specific verb 'List' and resource 'actions'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_action_count or transkribus_action_info, which perform related but different tasks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema.

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