List Actions

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying the filtering scope ('by action ID or template'), but doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the essential information about filtering capabilities.

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 tool with comprehensive annotations and full parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what 'executed actions' include or the response format, leaving gaps in understanding the return values despite the good structural coverage.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions filtering by 'action ID or template' which aligns with two parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('executed actions'), making the purpose understandable. It mentions filtering capabilities, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_list_action_types' or 'dual_get_action', which could cause confusion about scope.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dual_get_action' (for single action details) or 'dual_list_action_types' (for action types rather than executions), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for filtering.

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