list_olivetin_actions

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds value by disclosing the output content (IDs, titles, argument schemas, approval flags) and explicitly stating 'No approval needed' for the call itself. This goes beyond the read-only hint and gives the agent confidence about side-effect-free behavior and operational prerequisites.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose ('List all available OliveTin actions') and packs useful specifics (what fields are returned, no approval needed) without any filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, no side effects), the description covers all essential information: the action scope ('all'), the list of returned fields, and the absence of an approval requirement. An output schema exists, so return value details need not be repeated. This is complete for an agent to use 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 an empty input schema, so the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related confusion. It appropriately focuses on the output rather than nonexistent inputs.

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 tool lists all OliveTin actions and specifies the exact information returned (IDs, titles, argument schemas, approval requirements). The verb 'list' is specific, the resource 'OliveTin actions' is unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_pending_approvals.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to discover available actions and their properties. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, but the purpose is self-evident and the added note 'No approval needed' signals that this operation is safe and callable without restrictions. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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