get_actors_in_radius

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/no-open-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the world selector semantics (editor default, pie/server/client/pie:N), the fact that runtime-spawned actors are reachable via non-editor worlds, and that the reply stamps world_name/world_package/net_mode/pie_instance so actors_count:0 is interpretable. That is genuine behavioral disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 in the first clause, and the routing rule follows immediately. The remainder is dense and information-bearing, though the world-enumeration and return-shape recap make it longer than strictly necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description spells out the full return shape (center, radius, world, actor list with distance/location, actors_count, and world metadata). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents world, center and radius in detail (including the origin-based measurement and the silent [0,0,0] fallback). The description largely restates the world values rather than adding new semantics, 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+resource and scope: every actor whose ORIGIN lies within radius cm of a world point, plus distance and location. It explicitly names the sibling it is NOT (get_actors_by_class) and states the distinguishing condition, so an agent can tell them 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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: pick this over get_actors_by_class when the question is 'what is near here' instead of 'where are the X'. The alternative and the selecting condition are both named, 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.