List every active LuaStateProxy

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: the 256-state output bound, the active-client precondition, and the failure path (inspect tool-schema). Bounded-result behavior is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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 and compact, but several clauses merely restate structured data: 'Safety: read-only' duplicates readOnlyHint and 'idempotency=read-only' duplicates idempotentHint, while the signature duplicates the schema. That label-value padding dilutes rather than wastes away.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials an agent needs: return shape ('compact state/actor metadata plus reusable References'), the result bound, the precondition, and where to look on failure. Adequate and nearly complete.

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 documents both parameters, making 3 the baseline. The inline signature repeats the schema and even renders includeActors as 'any?' which is less precise than the schema's boolean, so it adds no meaning.

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: it calls getactorstates(), caps output at 256, and returns state/actor metadata plus References. That is clearly distinct from singular siblings like get-lua-state. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from get-lua-state-actors, which sounds like the same territory.

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?

It gives preconditions (Requires: active-client) and a phase marker (Phase: observe), which implies when to reach for it, but names no alternative tools and no when-not condition. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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