Probe Actors, LuaStateProxy, channels, and actor events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so 'idempotency=read-only' and 'Safety: read-only' add no value. The description does add cost=medium and the 'active-client' precondition, which are genuine context beyond the structured fields, but no return-shape or failure behavior detail.

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 purpose leads, which is good, but the dash-separated metadata block is partly redundant ('idempotency=read-only', 'Safety: read-only' duplicate annotations) and 'idempotency=read-only' conflates two distinct properties. Some statements do not earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden but only says 'Produces: structured-result', which is too vague for a probe/matrix tool. 'On failure' guidance pointing to tool-schema helps, but what the matrix actually contains is underspecified.

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 100% and there is a single optional threadContext whose schema description already explains it. 'Signature: { threadContext: number? }' merely restates the schema without adding format, default, or scoping meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific resource: a read-only matrix covering Actors, LuaStateProxy, event objects, and aliases. An agent can distinguish this enumeration/probe surface from siblings like list-actors or get-actor-details. It lacks an explicit contrast to those siblings, hence not a 5.

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?

'Phase: verify' and 'Requires: active-client' hint at a workflow position and a precondition, but the description never says when to choose this over list-actors, get-actor-details, or get-lua-state-actors. No when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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