get-actor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well: it lists exact output categories, notes that effects/conditions are name-only, and explicitly omits item descriptions to optimize token usage. It could add an explicit 'read-only/no side effects' statement, but 'Retrieve' plus the detailed return list sufficiently communicates a non-mutating lookup.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return contents, use case, and the alternative tool. The return list is compact but informative, and the most important distinction (get-actor vs get-actor-entity) appears at the end without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description compensates by itemizing what is returned (stats, actions, effects, items with specific metadata) and what is intentionally omitted. The identifier parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the token-instance nuance is explained. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and interpret the high-level result.

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 covers the single parameter with 100% coverage, including the nuance about accepting token IDs and reading live instance state. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, 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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('D&D 5e character information'), then enumerates exactly what it returns. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get-actor-entity by noting that the latter fetches full details, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative get-actor-entity for fetching full details, and the schema explains when to pass a token ID from list-tokens to read live instance state. 'Perfect for checking equipment or identifying what to investigate further' gives a concrete use case. This is explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-the-alternative guidance.

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