Get actor

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about where actors appear (review submissions and version history), which helps the agent understand the tool's domain. No contradiction with annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first two sentences are efficient. The final sentence is awkward and introduces confusion, slightly reducing the overall conciseness and structure quality.

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 get-by-ID tool, the description covers what an actor is, where IDs come from, and hints at an alternative tool. However, the unclear guidance about list-actors prevents full completeness, and the lack of output schema details is not a major issue given the simplicity.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, already explaining that actorId is an actor ID (user or API key identity) and is often returned in submission/version responses. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool gets an actor (user or API key) by ID, which is a specific verb+resource. It also provides helpful context that actors appear in review submissions and version history. However, the final sentence about using list-actors is confusing and slightly muddles the purpose.

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 attempts to provide an alternative by mentioning list-actors, but the phrasing 'Use list-actors with known IDs to resolve' is ambiguous. It does not clearly specify when to use get-actor versus list-actors, and the instruction could be misinterpreted as recommending list-actors for known IDs, which seems backwards.

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