cb_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that actions are available; it does not explicitly say the call is read-only, what the response represents, or whether any state changes occur.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified: a few more words like 'Lists the' would make the purpose explicit while preserving conciseness.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, a brief description is acceptable, but the tool is still incomplete contextually: it never states the relationship to cb_run or that this is the inventory of actions for CustomBuild operations. An agent must infer the intended use from the name and sibling list.

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, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The schema already covers 100% of the parameter surface, and the description adds the only relevant context: the result is about available CustomBuild actions.

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 identifies the resource (CustomBuild actions) and indicates the tool exposes available actions, which is clearly a listing operation despite lacking an explicit verb. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like cb_run or cb_options.

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 guidance is given for when to call this tool or when to prefer an alternative. It does not mention that cb_run consumes these actions or that related CustomBuild configuration is handled by cb_options.

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