get_actor_blueprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the world-resolution semantics, the explicit failure (not silent fallback) on an unrecognized world value, and the 'Actor not found' outcome for runtime-spawned actors in the editor world. It stops short of stating cost/latency beyond the word 'cheap', so 4 rather than 5.

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 core answer is front-loaded and each block (purpose, alternative, world semantics, returns) is a distinct sentence with no filler. It is, however, dense with parenthetical asides and quoted phrasing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (is_blueprint, blueprint_class, blueprint_asset, world stamps). Combined with full parameter documentation and annotation-covered safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds the rationale behind the world parameter (why runtime-spawned actors require 'pie') that the schema's enumeration does not supply. The field list does partly duplicate the schema, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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+resource+scope: tells whether a placed actor derives from a Blueprint and returns its generated class and source asset. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_actors_by_class ('for the reverse (all actors of a class)'), so an agent can route correctly 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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it (reverse lookup of all actors of a class). It also gives when-to-use guidance for the world selector, explaining that a runtime-spawned actor is only reachable via world='pie' and reads as 'Actor not found' in the editor world.

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