fusion_api_list_actions

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: the list is observed rather than declared, fields come from the pod's own rejection messages, and a concrete 403 example explains why some advertised resources are absent. It also clarifies the semantics of missing resources, which is critical for correct interpretation. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: the core purpose, the entry-point instruction, the observed-vs-declared distinction, and the missing-resource fallback. The example with purchaseOrders is specific and memorable without being bloated.

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 there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description supplies all necessary operational context: what the list contains, where the data comes from, how absence should be interpreted, and what to do next. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to use this tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is fully adequate.

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 first sentence states exactly what the tool does: list what the service account was observed able to create on the pod. It differentiates observed capabilities from declared ones and distinguishes this from sibling tools like fusion_api_describe by emphasizing this is harvested from rejection messages, not metadata.

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 explicitly says 'Start every "register a X" request here,' giving a clear when-to-use instruction. It also provides an alternative path: if a resource is missing, check with fusion_api_describe, which reports write_access either way. This gives the agent actionable routing guidance.

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