List actor ownership

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile needs no repetition. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: the output distinguishes explicitly-set levels from inherited defaults, and Gamemasters are silently excluded ('Gamemasters are left out because they own everything'). This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, and sentence two earns its place by covering scope options and the GM exclusion. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description conveys the essential return semantics — effective level per player per actor plus whether the level is explicit or inherited from the actor default. Combined with two optional, fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the definition is complete for a read-only listing tool. Only minor details like the level format are unspecified.

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 fully documents both parameters (identifier forms, 'all'/omitted semantics for actorIdentifier, and player filtering). The description's 'One actor or all, one player or all' merely restates the schema's scope without adding new semantic detail, 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') with a clear resource ('which level every player effectively has on actors') and adds the distinguishing detail of effective vs. default levels. This cleanly differentiates it from the write-side siblings assign-actor-ownership and remove-actor-ownership, and from the broader get-permissions tool.

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 scope guidance ('One actor or all, one player or all') gives an agent a clear sense of the tool's flexibility, and the read-only nature is implied. However, the description never explicitly names alternatives or states when-not-to-use it (e.g., 'to change ownership, use assign-actor-ownership'). Usage is inferable from sibling names rather than stated.

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