get_active_effects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: effects whose definition is gone are silently skipped, which explains potential omissions in output.

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 purpose, then behavioral caveat, then the sibling alternative, then the return shape. No filler; each sentence carries information, though the return field list is slightly redundant given effect_name/effect_class/level are already enumerated inline.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned fields and the skip behavior, which is sufficient for a one-parameter read-only tool. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if actor_name does not resolve.

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 single actor_name parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example and label-vs-name guidance. The description adds only the 'editor-world' scoping qualifier, so 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 (List) and resource (gameplay effects currently active on an actor's ability system component), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_gameplay_effect_info that reads a single definition. An agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Provides clear usage context by noting it is read-only and routing the single-definition case to get_gameplay_effect_info. It stops short of fuller when/when-not framing (e.g. when to prefer this versus get_gameplay_effect_components), but the alternative is named.

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