list_ui_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, making the tool's safety and behavior clear. The description adds a behavioral constraint (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) that is not in annotations, providing extra context. No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No extraneous words; every part adds value.

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 list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality and a key requirement. Minor omission: No mention of pagination or default limit, but the input schema includes a limit parameter with default 25.

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%, so the schema describes all parameters adequately. The description mentions 'buttons, context menus, related links', which mirrors the type parameter's enum values but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'UI Actions', and the scope 'for a table'. It also differentiates from sibling tools like get_ui_action (single retrieval) and create_ui_action (creation). The context of buttons, context menus, and related links adds specificity.

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 a clear prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which helps the agent understand when the tool is available. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like list_acls or list_business_rules, leaving some ambiguity about selection among sibling listing tools.

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