who_is_active

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. While it mentions lane-scoping and liveness, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, or potential side effects. The behavioral traits are under-specified.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that immediately state the purpose and a usage hint. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and two optional parameters, the description lacks crucial context: what constitutes a 'liveness window', how 'within_seconds' modifies results, and what the output format is. It is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It adds meaning to 'lane' by noting scoping, but fails to explain 'within_seconds' (its range, format, or effect). Only partial parameter semantics are conveyed.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'actors seen within the liveness window'. It distinguishes the tool by specifying lane-scoping and hints at practical use, making it distinct from siblings like list_participants or whoami.

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 phrase 'Check before touching a shared surface' gives context for when to use the tool, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No comparison with other sibling tools is provided.

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