get_actor_net_update_frequency

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it reads the placed instance, not a PIE copy, and the returned actor_name is the engine object name. It does not mention auth or rate considerations, but for a pure read none are expected.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the resource and scope before the read-only caveat and the writer cross-reference. The return-field list is compact and directly useful.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the return shape ({ actor_name, net_update_frequency, min_net_update_frequency }), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. Combined with the single well-documented parameter and annotations, 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 schema already explains that actor_name matches labels rather than engine object names. The description echoes the label lookup ('found by label') but adds no new syntax or matching detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Read) plus the exact resource (NetUpdateFrequency and MinNetUpdateFrequency in Hz) and the scope (an editor-world actor found by label). It also names the sibling writer, set_actor_net_update_frequency, so an agent can distinguish read from write without opening a 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 names the reciprocal set_actor_net_update_frequency tool and clarifies this reads the placed editor instance rather than a PIE copy, which tells the agent which context applies. There is no explicit when-not guidance against the broader family of net getters (get_net_priority, get_net_role), but the context is clear.

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