List actors

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: preview URLs expire while actor IDs remain reusable, and the default-voice behavior when no voice is supplied. These are useful operational details an agent would not infer from the annotation.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is listed, how to use the ID, a URL-lifecycle caveat, a combination prohibition, and voice default behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless read-only list tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it names the output fields, explains ID reuse, warns about expiring previews, and covers interactions with related tools. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document; the baseline for this case is 4. The description compensates by explaining the significance of actor_id (reusable, suitable for quote_ugc/make_ugc) and what output fields are present.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List saved Clipwright actors') and enumerates the returned attributes (stable IDs, gender, age, verified image formats). It also ties the tool to downstream use in quote_ugc and make_ugc, making its role distinct even among siblings.

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 clear context for when to use the result: choose actor_id for quote_ugc and make_ugc, and provides two prohibitions/constraints (do not combine actor_id with image/person/actor_gender; no voice means default gender voice). It does not explicitly contrast with an alternative such as get_actor_defaults, so exclusions are absent.

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