get_ai_perceived_actors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: editor-world-only lookup, PIE exclusion, error on unpossessed pawn, and the absence of last-sensed time in results.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and keeps behavioral caveats in the first sentence. It is appropriately sized, though the explicit 'Returns:' block slightly duplicates the earlier return summary, adding a minor redundancy.

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 supplies the return structure and field names, while annotations cover the safety profile. It also discloses the editor-versus-PIE constraint and the error condition for unpossessed pawns, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, and the schema itself documents that actor_name is an object name or editor label with first-match behavior. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 (List), resource (actors perceived by AIPerceptionComponent), and scope (AI-possessed pawn or AIController), making the tool's function unmistakable. It does not name or contrast with a sibling such as get_ai_perception_senses, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 specifies the operational context clearly: the actor is looked up in the editor world, not PIE, and an unpossessed pawn is an error. This gives useful when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions, though it does not name alternative tools for related queries.

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