List Actors associated with one LuaStateProxy

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a hard result cap ('at most 200 Actor paths'), cost=medium, the active-client prerequisite, and a failure-handling pointer to tool-schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and organized into labeled fields (Signature, Phase, Requires, Capabilities, Produces, Safety, On failure), so an agent can scan it quickly. 'Safety: read-only' duplicates readOnlyHint and the signature repeats the schema, minor waste in an otherwise tight definition.

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 still characterizes the return (a capped list of Actor paths), states the prerequisite, and routes the agent to tool-schema on failure. It is largely self-sufficient for a read-only observation tool, though it omits what an Actor path looks like and any pagination behavior.

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% and the enum, defaults, and threadContext bounds are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the signature and the state values (current/game/expression) but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 chain (Resolve state, call LuaStateProxy:GetActors(), return Actor paths) and scopes the resource to Actors associated with one LuaStateProxy, which meaningfully narrows it versus the sibling list-actors/list-script-actors. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of 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?

Provides a prerequisite ('Requires: active-client') and a phase label ('Phase: observe'), which imply when it fits. However it never states when to prefer this over list-actors, list-script-actors, or get-lua-state, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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