get_actor_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose behavior for edge cases (e.g., actor not found), return format, or whether the operation has side effects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral detail compared to more transparent descriptions.

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 that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter operation, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool has one parameter, complete schema coverage, and no output schema or annotations. The description fully covers the purpose and input, making it self-contained for an agent. It could arguably mention return format, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter 'name' has a description 'Actor name or label'). The description of the tool itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 per the rubric 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get all properties of an actor by name.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('actor properties'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_actor_components and set_actor_property by focusing on properties rather than components or writes.

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: it is for retrieving actor properties when needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_actor_components) or when not to use it. The context of 'Get' suggests read-only retrieval, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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