list_actors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Returns actors created or used by the user', which hints at read-only behavior and user-scoping, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (beyond schema), error handling, or return format. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating scope details into a second sentence for clarity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with user-scoping, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'actor' is in this context, how results are ordered, whether filtering beyond 'my' is possible, or what the return structure looks like. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this 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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema (offset, limit, my). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'my' parameter's implications or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of actors'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies 'actors created or used by the user', which adds useful context about scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_actor' or 'list_actor_runs', missing full differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like 'get_actor' for single actors or 'list_actor_runs' for runs), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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