get_actor_replication_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it scopes the tool to 'editor-world' actors and discloses a non-obvious implementation detail ('replicate_movement via reflection'), which is not something the agent could get from structured fields.

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 lines: the action and scope come first, then the return shape. No filler, and the field list is compact but complete.

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 present, the description correctly takes on the burden of documenting the return object, and it does so field by field. The remaining gap is routing: with configure_replication, get_replication_info, and the per-field getters as siblings, the description never explains when this consolidated read is preferable.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Label of the actor in the editor world'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about parameter format or edge cases (e.g. ambiguous labels, missing actor), 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read replication settings for an editor-world actor') and enumerates the settings covered, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like get_replication_info, get_actor_net_update_frequency, or get_actor_net_cull_distance, which the agent could equally reach for.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a crowded sibling space of net/replication getters. The only implicit cue is that it is a read operation, which the agent could already infer from the name.

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