get_ability_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: an error is raised when no granted spec matches, and only the first matching spec is returned when multiple match. The opening "Read-only" merely restates 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?

Front-loaded with the action and returned fields, then error behavior and the sibling alternative, then a compact Returns block. Tight overall, though the redundant "Read-only" clause and a return-field list that restates the field enumeration above cost a little.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the return object shape and the no-match error path, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain, such as behavior when actor_name resolves to nothing and the meaning of the level/input_id values.

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%, including the accepted forms of ability_name and the case-insensitive actor_name lookup, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's "first matching spec" hint about matching semantics largely duplicates what the ability_name schema text already says ("first match wins"), adding little beyond the baseline.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ("Read one ability granted to an editor-world actor ability system component") and enumerates the exact fields returned (ability_class, level, is_active, input_id), so it is distinguishable from sibling read tools like get_ability_activation_info or get_ability_system_component at a glance.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the sibling get_active_abilities "to list them all," which gives a clear alternative for the enumerate-everything case, and it states the error condition when no granted spec matches. It stops short of a full when-not statement (e.g., guidance on actor lookup or prerequisites such as an ability system component existing).

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