list_actions

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: AND-style word matching against action names and _SWS/_RS ids, the exact return fields (command_id, name, named_id, toggle_state), and limit/offset paging. It stops short of covering default behavior on an empty query or ordering of results, so not a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: matching semantics first, then return shape and paging, then the section enumeration. Every clause carries operational information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates returned fields and explains paging and section scoping, which is what an agent needs to call it. Missing only edge-case behavior (empty query, result ordering), which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it explains query matching rules, limit/offset paging, and enumerates all valid section values with the default (main). It omits the 1-200 limit bound and offset constraints, but that is a minor gap against strong compensation.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search REAPER's action list") and immediately defines the matching semantics, which distinguishes it from the sibling run_action (which executes rather than searches). An agent can tell what this returns and how matching works without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup step before run_action, but the description never names run_action, raw_command, or any alternative, nor states exclusions. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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