list_actions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. Calling it 'List' implies a read-only operation and the trigger_action pairing hints at a two-step discovery flow, but it says nothing about what happens if the target window doesn't exist, whether hidden/disabled actions are returned by default, or what the results look like. Adequate, but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the resource definition and end with the actionable follow-up. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 simple, zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the trigger_action pairing, which is most of what matters. Missing is the window-argument contract and any sense of return shape (e.g., names vs. objects), so an agent still has to guess how to go from results to a trigger_action call.

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% across 3 parameters, and the description only compensates for one of them: `text` is clarified as a substring filter. `window` is never explained (the default 'QgisApp' and how window names relate to list_windows is left implicit), and `include_hidden` — the parameter with the most behavioral consequence — is not mentioned at all.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and a precisely defined resource (QActions), and the parenthetical explains what a QAction is in practical terms — menu items and toolbar buttons where plugins register entry points. That definition alone separates it from siblings like list_windows, list_plugins, and list_algorithms.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: list here, then call trigger_action to launch the plugin, which is the key pairing an agent needs. It also says to use `text` for substring filtering, though it doesn't say when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when list_windows/inspect_layer would answer the question instead).

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