get_actor_net_cull_distance

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the two return forms and explains that UE 5.8 internally stores the squared value (AActor::NetCullDistanceSquared), which prevents misinterpretation of the returned number.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then the return detail. The aside 'so you never have to remember which one you are looking at' is slightly chatty but justifies why two forms are returned, so it largely earns its place.

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 listing the returned fields explicitly. Combined with rich annotations, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this tool; only minor gaps remain (e.g. behavior when the actor lacks a cull distance).

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 description coverage is 100% and the single actor_name parameter is documented there ('Engine name of the actor'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further syntax or format guidance for the parameter.

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 an actor's net cull distance') and explicitly names the write-side sibling set_actor_net_cull_distance, so the agent can distinguish it 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?

It frames itself as the 'read-side of set_actor_net_cull_distance', which clearly routes the agent to this tool for inspection versus that one for mutation. It doesn't spell out exclusions or prerequisites, but the pairing is explicit.

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