list_actor_roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is an observation aid, that roles are self-declared, and that nothing is enforced. This effectively communicates side-effect-free read-only behavior without explicitly stating 'no side effects.' It could add details about authorization requirements or rate limits, but for a simple list tool the disclosure is sufficient.

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 sentences of clean, directly relevant text. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a critical caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and a clear purpose, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what to be cautious about. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the baseline the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description mentions actor_id in the output context, but since there are no inputs, no further semantic compensation is required. The baseline of 4 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report which roles each actor_id has claimed tasks under, across every Plan.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_memory or list_plans by focusing on actor-role mapping. No other sibling tool covers this functionality.

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 explicit usage context: use it to sanity check who has been active under which roles before trusting a Memory/Event entry from an unfamiliar actor_id. It also states what it is not (not authentication) and why (self-declared roles, nothing enforced), giving clear when/when-not guidance.

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