List zone actions

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

With the readOnlyHint annotation already signaling a safe read operation, the description adds meaningful context by clarifying that actions are asynchronous operations (e.g., zone file imports) and that the scope can be narrowed to a single zone via the 'zone' parameter. This goes beyond the annotation but does not over-explain schema-covered details like pagination or status filtering, which are adequately documented in the input schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and scope variation. It is extremely concise with no filler words, every phrase contributes meaning, and it is easily parsable.

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 read-only list operation with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly. It clarifies the action type and the zone-scoping behavior. While it does not describe the return structure, this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the rich parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 four parameters (page, zone, status, per_page) already have descriptions. The tool description adds minimal new semantic value beyond the schema, only reiterating that the zone parameter can narrow the listing. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 starts with 'List actions' which is a clear verb+resource, and immediately scopes it: 'of all zones, or of a single zone if one is given.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_zone_action (which likely fetches one action) and list_zones (which lists zones, not actions). The example 'asynchronous operations like zone file imports' adds further clarity about the resource type.

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 context on when to use the tool: to list actions across all zones or a single zone. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_zone_action for retrieving a single action's detail. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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