List script actors

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-redundant context: cost=medium, requires an active client, the getactors capability, and bounded output. These are useful operational facts beyond the structured annotations.

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 is front-loaded, which is good, but roughly half the text is metadata labels that partly duplicate the annotations ('idempotency=read-only', 'Safety: read-only') or the schema (the signature line). It is compact but padded with low-value fields rather than earning every sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more of the return-shape burden; 'Produces: bounded-candidates' is vague about what a caller actually gets back. The active-client prerequisite and budget framing are present, but the result format and how it differs from list-actors remain 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'limit' (hard result/work budget, default 250) and 'threadContext' (optional Roblox thread identity). The description only restates the signature as 'limit: any?, threadContext: number?' and adds no new meaning, 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 (List) and resource (Actor instances and contained LuaSourceContainer scripts) plus a use case (actor-based reverse analysis). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar sibling 'list-actors', and an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of the two to pick.

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?

The phrase 'for actor-based reverse analysis' and 'Phase: orchestrate' imply a usage context, and 'Requires: active-client' is a real prerequisite. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no routing against alternatives like list-actors, get-actor-details, or actor-capabilities.

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