find_smart_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds a critical behavioral trait beyond them: the spatial index is empty in editor/headless worlds, so the tool returns success with an empty list and a note instead of fabricating results. It also describes the return payload shape, which matters because no output schema is present.

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 front-loads the purpose, then the honest runtime caveat, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information that is not repeated in the schema or annotations, and there is no filler.

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 read-only spatial query with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the two missing pieces an agent needs: the runtime-init dependency that explains empty results, and the return payload shape since no output schema exists. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds no syntax or format details for center, radius, include_claimed, or include_disabled beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Spatially query the SmartObject subsystem for slots within a box centered on a point,' and ties it to the underlying API USmartObjectSubsystem::FindSmartObjects. This scope distinguishes it from sibling list/detail tools such as get_smart_object_slots_detail or get_smart_object_info, which are not spatial queries.

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?

Usage is implied by the spatial-query framing and the 'HONEST GATE' caveat explaining that the result is only meaningful once the subsystem runtime is initialized (BeginPlay/PIE). However, the description never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over get_smart_object_slots_detail or get_smart_object_info, leaving selection guidance to inference.

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