List toolbar actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms the listing returns id and name, but says nothing about the limit parameter's truncation behavior (default 60 implies a cap that isn't explained), result ordering, or whether the list is live from the editor state.

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 tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately short for a simple list tool, though brevity here comes at the cost of the missing details noted above.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it says what is listed and what fields come back. The unexplained limit semantics and absent tie-in to bb_run_action leave real gaps for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 0% and neither parameter is described in the schema. The description mentions filtering but not whether 'filter' matches id, name, or both, and 'limit' is never referenced at all despite its 60 default suggesting truncation.

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 and resource ('List runnable Blockbench actions (BarItems) by id and name'), and clarifies what is returned. It does not name the obvious sibling bb_run_action, so the agent must infer that this enumerates what that tool executes.

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?

Only 'optionally filtered' hints at usage; there is no statement of when to call this versus bb_run_action or any prerequisite/context. An agent can infer the discovery-then-execute pattern, but the description never says it.

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