List Actor scripts (parallel-Luau VMs)

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real operational traits: a 200-actor output cap with a truncated flag, a 30-scripts-per-actor cap, and a hard getactors prerequisite that degrades with an error. It does partially restate read-only/idempotency which annotations already carry, keeping it from a 5.

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-loads the core operation and return shape before trailing metadata (Phase, cost, capabilities, safety), so the most important content comes first. It is somewhat dense with boilerplate meta-fields and closes with a generic 'inspect tool-schema' redirect, but nothing is egregiously wasted.

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-format burden well, spelling out per-Actor name, path, location classification, descendant counts, and the conditional script list. It is essentially complete for calling the tool, with only minor overlap against the 100%-covered schema.

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 baseline is 3: both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including includeScripts' default and 30-per-actor cap. The description's signature line and includeScripts note largely repeat that, adding little new semantic detail.

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 ('Enumerate every Actor instance in the game') and even names the underlying capability (getactors), plus explains what Actors are (parallel-Luau VMs, outside normal scheduler). It stops short of distinguishing itself from near-neighbors like list-script-actors or get-actor-details, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 useful context ('a common place to hide logic', 'Phase: observe; cost=medium') that implies when this is worth running, and notes the getactors dependency and degradation behavior. However it names no explicit alternative or when-not condition despite several overlapping siblings, leaving selection to inference.

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