get_actor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that the result includes a 6x100 parameters table, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior (e.g., unknown ID), return format details beyond the table, or any side effects (though 'get' implies read-only). This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, then details the included data. It earns its place without waste.

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 getter with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, this description is fairly complete. It states what is returned (the actor and its parameters table), which is the key context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on error handling or differentiation from sibling tools, so it is 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 input schema already fully documents the only parameter, actorId, as 'The ID of the actor to retrieve'. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 action (get), the resource (specific actor), and the scope (by ID). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_actors (plural) and search_actors by specifying retrieval of a single actor by its unique ID.

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 rather than explicit: you need an actor ID to fetch a specific actor. The description does not contrast with alternatives like get_actors or search_actors, nor does it state when not to use this tool. This is acceptable but not fully guiding.

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