abx_get_all_actions

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it retrieves a count matching name criteria, but it does not clarify how pagination, projection, or the count return value behave, and 'by ID' introduces confusion.

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 and front-loaded, but the first two sentences repeat the same 'count of subscribable actions' idea and the 'by ID' wording is not clarified. It could be compressed into one precise sentence.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and many sibling action-related tools, the description should clarify whether this returns a count or entities and how it differs from related ABX tools. It leaves those selection-critical questions unresolved.

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 page, size, projection, and nameCriteria are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the name criteria concept and adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 says it fetches a count of 'subscribable actions by ID', but the tool name suggests listing all actions and the schema has no ID parameter. The phrase 'matching the name criteria' helps, but the count-vs-list ambiguity and undefined 'subscribable' leave the purpose muddled.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as abx_get_action_by_id, abx_get_all_action_templates, or abx_get_all_action_run_projections. It also does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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