fetch-actor-details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: controlling output via boolean flags, default behavior, and the nuance about the readme field returning summary when available. No contradictions.

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 well-structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, followed by explanations of the output parameter, and ending with practical examples. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the nested output schema and multiple boolean fields, the description covers all essential aspects: default behavior, selective field usage, and common patterns. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains the actor parameter format with examples, details the output parameter with patterns and defaults, and provides common usage patterns like 'inputSchema only' or 'mcpTools for MCP Actors'. This greatly aids the agent in using parameters correctly.

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 purpose: 'Get detailed information about an Actor by its ID or full name' and specifies the required format. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search-actors and call-actor by focusing on detailed retrieval.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use when querying Actor details, documentation, input requirements, or MCP tools' and includes multiple examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, though sibling tools imply alternatives.

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