Actor state (DECORATE)

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It lists what the tool returns but does not state whether it has side effects or is read-only. The action 'run dumpactor' suggests inspection, but the behavioral safety profile is not explicitly communicated. Given the potential for misuse (e.g., actor state mutation?), this omission is notable.

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 description is extremely concise: two sentences deliver purpose, output detail, default behavior, and targeting syntax. No word is wasted, and the most critical information is front-loaded. Excellent structure.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of returned fields (class, health, position, DECORATE state, inventory, ready weapon, morph status). It includes an example of the DECORATE format. However, it does not explain how to interpret all fields or mention potential errors. For a debug tool of this complexity, it is mostly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It partially addresses 'tid': mentions defaulting to player (TID=0) and passing a TID for any actor. However, it completely ignores the 'instance' parameter, leaving its purpose unclear. A tool with two parameters should describe both.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('run dumpactor and return an actor's live state') and enumerates specific output fields (class, health, position, DECORATE state, inventory, etc.). It also notes the default behavior (player) and how to target other actors via TID. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'player_state' or 'inspect_target', which could cause confusion.

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 description provides basic guidance: defaults to player and accepts a TID for other actors. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' versus alternatives, such as distinguishing from 'player_state' for player-specific data or 'inspect_target' for a different view. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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