get_ability_system_component

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by explaining the component resolution order (IAbilitySystemInterface answer, else first UAbilitySystemComponent), the counting semantics ('all granted specs, active or not'), and the failure mode (missing actor/component errors rather than returning has_ability_system=false).

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-loads the operation and target, then adds the return shape. Two sentences plus a returns line, all of which carry information; the returns line is justified because no output schema exists.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers resolution logic, error behavior, and the return shape (necessary since there is no output schema). Only the relationship to sibling count/list tools is left unspecified.

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 is 100%, so actor_name is already fully documented in the schema, including the label-vs-name mapping pointer. The description adds no format or matching detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the ability system component of an editor-world actor') and clarifies exactly what is returned (component_name, active_abilities_count, active_effects_count). It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling queries like get_active_abilities or get_active_effects, which the agent would have to disambiguate on its own.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite several closely related siblings (get_active_abilities, get_active_effects, get_ability_info). The note that a missing actor/component is an error is error-handling context, not routing guidance.

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