actors_get_collection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not pagination behavior, not default page size, not auth requirements, not what the response contains. A bare endpoint string is the minimum possible disclosure.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — the same URL is even duplicated in parentheses. Nothing here is front-loaded because there is nothing of substance to front-load.

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 collection endpoint with three optional query parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at least state that it returns a paginated list of actor resources. It supplies none of that, leaving the agent to infer the entire behavior from the name.

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 100%, so limit, filter_id, and fields_actors are already documented in the schema with their meanings. The description adds no parameter context, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is just the raw endpoint "GET /v1/actors (GET /v1/actors)", which restates the tool name (actors_get_collection) in URL form rather than describing what the tool does. It conveys no verb-resource semantics beyond what the name already implies and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like actors_get_instance.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all. An agent has no signal about when to list actors versus fetching a single actor via actors_get_instance, or how this relates to filters such as filter_id.

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