List project remix actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only that the payload is per-project status information, with no note on ordering, scope of 'actions', or whether results can be empty.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating resource and scope immediately. Nothing is redundant or misplaced.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is schema-documented. Still missing is any indication of what constitutes a 'remix action' or how results are bounded, which matters for an agent deciding whether this call answers its question.

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?

There is one required parameter (projectId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description merely implies the project scoping and adds no format or identifier guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb ('List'), resource ('remix actions'), and scope ('applied to a project'), plus the returned facet ('status'). It is distinguishable from the sibling remix_project, which creates rather than reports, though the description never states that contrast explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use condition, no prerequisite, and no pointer to an alternative tool. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the retrieval counterpart to remix_project.

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