get_actor_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states a read-only listing action, but does not mention what happens if the actor is not found, whether the list includes nested components, or any side effects. For a simple get operation, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description gives the core purpose but omits return format (e.g., names, types), error behavior, and any filtering options. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps about what the returned list contains.

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 for the single parameter 'name' is 100% (description: 'Actor name or label'), so the schema fully documents it. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, but since the schema already covers it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all components on an actor' clearly states the specific action (list) and the resource (components) with the target (actor). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_actor_properties (properties vs components) and list_actors (all actors vs components of one actor).

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 implies usage: call this when you need to see components belonging to an actor. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It doesn't mention whether the actor must exist or how it relates to tools like get_actor_properties.

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