list_available_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, or what an 'action' record contains. For a bulk listing across all worker-sets, the potential result size and shape go undisclosed.

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 short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. The parenthetical alias slightly muddies an otherwise crisp statement.

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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what an 'action' is, why it is equated with 'workers', and whether the result spans the whole tenant, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent deciding whether this is the right 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds terminology context by equating 'actions' with 'workers', which is mildly useful but does not concern parameters.

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') plus resource ('actions (or workers)') and scope ('from all worker-sets'). The scope phrase meaningfully separates it from the sibling get_worker_set_actions, which presumably targets a single set. The parenthetical 'or workers' introduces a naming ambiguity but does not obscure the core purpose.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_worker_set_actions or get_worker_set. The phrase 'from all worker-sets' implicitly signals the cross-set scope, which is the only usage cue present, so guidance is inferable but not stated.

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