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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists all actors, which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose any potential limitations (e.g., pagination, ordering) or return format. It adds some context beyond the name ('all' and 'project') but lacks richer behavioral details.

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?

One concise sentence that delivers the essential purpose without fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 simple list tool with zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly defines the action (list), the scope (all actors), and the container (project). No additional context is necessary.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none to explain. The schema already covers all parameters (none), so this is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists all actors in the project, using a specific verb (list) and resource (actors). It distinguishes from sibling tools like nolag_get_actor (single actor) and nolag_list_scope_actors (actors within a scope) by specifying project-wide scope.

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 provides clear context — use when you need the full project actor list. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous enough to guide selection. A more explicit 'for scoped lists, use nolag_list_scope_actors' would earn a 5.

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