get_actor_lock_location

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 structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the editor-world-only scope and the diagnostic intent (verifying a no-op transform), which is genuinely useful context, though it says nothing about error behavior for a missing actor.

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 tight sentences plus an explicit Returns line, all front-loaded with the core purpose before the diagnostic rationale. Every sentence carries distinct information with no waste.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ actor_name, locked }), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. For a one-parameter boolean read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 (internal name or editor label, exact match, editor world only). The description's only added param-relevant detail is the 'EDITOR-world actor' scope, which is essentially a restatement, so the 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 (read) plus resource (whether an actor is location-locked in the viewport) and names the exact underlying API (AActor::IsLockLocation). It also distinguishes itself from its sibling set_actor_lock_location by positioning itself as the read counterpart, so the agent can tell the two 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?

Explicit routing guidance: it is the 'read-back oracle for set_actor_lock_location' and 'the thing to check first when a transform command reports success but the actor has not moved.' This names both the alternative tool and the diagnostic situation that should select it, leaving nothing to inference.

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