Inspect Actor(s) and their scripts

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses dependency on getactors, the additional use of getrunningscripts, the fallback to running=false when it is unavailable, the 30-script-per-Actor cap, and graceful degradation 'with a clear error' when getactors is missing or actorPath does not resolve.

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?

Purpose and behavior are front-loaded and information-dense, but the trailing boilerplate block (Signature, Phase, cost, idempotency, Requires, Capabilities, Produces, Safety, On failure) is verbose metadata that partly duplicates the prose. Efficient, but not tight.

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 fully carries the return contract, specifying a single Actor object when actorPath is given versus { actorCount, truncated, actors: [...] }, plus the per-Actor fields returned. Dependencies, failure behavior, and phase are all covered.

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 the schema already fully documents actorPath (Luau expression, IsA('Actor') validation) and threadContext. The description restates the actorPath omit-vs-provide semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Drill into Actor instances (parallel-Luau VMs) and report their contents') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list-actors by noting it 'complements list-actors by adding the running flag, the descendant count, and single-target resolution'. An agent can tell what it does and how it differs from neighbors without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes between the two modes: 'Give an actorPath to inspect ONE Actor in detail, or omit it to summarize EVERY Actor', and names the alternative tool it complements (list-actors). The condition selecting each behavior is stated outright.

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