get_ability_tasks

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 genuine behavioral context beyond that: the transient-package exclusion for NewAbilityTask tasks is a non-obvious gotcha that explains why some expected tasks are absent, and the embedded return shape sets expectations. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the verb and resource, followed by the exclusion caveat and an inline Returns line. Efficient and well-ordered, though the enumerated field list in the Returns block overlaps with the first sentence's field list, adding mild 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates with an explicit Returns object listing the keys and count fields, plus the exclusion rule. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only edge cases (ordering, empty result behavior) are unstated.

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% and the actor_name description already explains object-name-vs-label and case-insensitive matching. The description adds beyond the schema by clarifying that the actor is an editor-world actor and that its ability system component qualifies, refining which actor to pass. This is value above the schema baseline, though it remains light detail.

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 (List) and a tightly scoped resource: UGameplayTask objects outered to a GameplayTasksComponent of an editor-world actor, with the ability system component included. The scope (editor-world, outered tasks) is narrow enough to distinguish it from generic task lister siblings like list_global_tasks or list_tasks without opening their schemas.

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 explicit exclusion (tasks built by NewAbilityTask, including add_ability_task, are outered to the transient package and not listed) is a useful when-not condition. However, there is no routing to alternatives for the agent that actually wants those transient tasks, nor any clear statement of when to prefer this over list_global_tasks or get_active_abilities among similar siblings. Usage is implied by the narrow scope but not spelled out.

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