abx_get_action_by_id

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world GET. The description adds the cross-project scope and the endpoint, but does not explain pagination behavior, authentication needs, or whether multiple actions can share the same ID.

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 short, but it repeats the same idea in two nearly identical sentences and then lists the endpoint. It is not bloated, but the redundancy prevents it from being tightly front-loaded.

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 read-only GET with full schema coverage and strong annotations, this is minimally adequate. However, because there is no output schema, the description should clarify whether same-ID actions across projects are returned as a collection and how paging behaves.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description only echoes the ID and all-project scope and adds no syntax or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific operation and resource, but the phrase 'Fetch all actions by ID' is internally ambiguous: a by-ID lookup usually returns one action, while 'all actions' implies many. It also does not distinguish this tool from sibling listing or per-action tools such as abx_get_all_actions.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling to use instead. The 'across all projects' wording implies a scope, but the agent is left to infer the selection criteria.

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