get_actor_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the Controller fallback for possessed Pawns and the engine-reserved NoTeam (255) default when IGenericTeamAgentInterface isn't implemented.

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 action in the first clause, then the edge case, then a compact Returns block. Two sentences plus the return shape; nothing is wasted, though the statement is somewhat dense.

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 usefully documents the return object (actor_name, team_id, resolved_on, is_no_team) and the fallback semantics. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is close to complete for a single-param read 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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema carries the documentation. The description adds the resolution chain (actor → Controller) which hints at what actor_name targets, but no syntax or format detail beyond that; 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+resource ('Reads the native FGenericTeamId assigned to an actor') and immediately scopes it, including the Pawn/Controller fallback case. The read verb inherently distinguishes it from the sibling set_actor_team, so an agent can tell what operation this performs without opening the 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?

The description explains resolution behavior but never says when to prefer this over alternatives or names any sibling. Usage is only implied by the read verb; there's no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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