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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the selection criterion (assigned to a specific access scope) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, safe, or how results are returned. The description is minimal and lacks depth beyond the core listing action.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes to clarity, and it is appropriately sized for such a simple operation.

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 the simple nature (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose but leaves out expected return format and any edge-case behavior. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter 'scopeId' with a description ('Access scope ID'). The description adds little beyond the schema, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (list), resource (actors), and the limiting criterion (specific access scope). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'nolag_list_actors' which likely lists all actors without scope filtering.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope filter, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. An agent can infer it is for actors belonging to a specific scope, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is offered.

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