List actors

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the actor types (users or API keys) and the source of IDs, which is useful but does not disclose pagination behavior or return format. This is adequate but not rich, matching the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place, with no 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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and the source of IDs. It does not mention alternative tools or pagination, but those are not critical for this simple list tool. A score of 4 reflects the slight gap in not addressing the single-actor alternative (get-actor).

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 50%: filter.id has a description in the schema, while limit does not. The tool description reinforces the meaning of filter.id ('by ID(s)' and 'from review submissions or version history') but adds little about limit. The schema's default/min/max for limit provide some semantics. Overall, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 description clearly states the tool's function: 'List actors (users or API keys) by ID(s).' This specifies a verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'get-actor' by indicating batch retrieval via plural 'actors' and 'by ID(s)', and clarifies the actor types.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use when you have actor IDs from review submissions or version history.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not name alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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