List EV scenario actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds the 'all available' scope and clarifies that actions are building blocks, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or any other behavioral details. For a simple no-param list, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, no wasted words. It perfectly balances brevity with clarity.

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?

The tool is extremely simple: no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations. The description fully captures the purpose and scoping ('all available'), and the sibling context shows no competing 'list actions' tool. Complete for its complexity.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds meaning by defining what 'actions' are (building blocks), which helps the agent understand the returned items. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately compensates by explaining the domain concept.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all available EV scenario actions') and defines the term as 'building blocks for scenarios'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that manage scenarios themselves (e.g., cymulate_ev_scenarios_create/update/delete) by focusing on the 'actions' sub-resource.

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 usage is implied: to enumerate available scenario actions, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., cymulate_ev_templates_list) or any prerequisites or context for when this list is needed. The description is adequate but not instructive about alternatives.

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