get_attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' while adding genuinely new behavior: the component-resolution rule, that a missing actor or component is an error, and that a component with no registered set yields count 0. These are operational facts the annotations do not 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 verb and scope, then error semantics and the alternative routing, all of which earn their place. It runs long in a single sentence, and the trailing Returns block is somewhat dense, but nothing is wasted.

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 supplies the full return shape (actor_name, attributes array with attribute_name/attribute_set/value/base_value/found, and count), plus the value semantics ('current, modifiers included') and error/empty cases. 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 single actor_name parameter is fully documented in the schema (object name, not label, case-insensitive, with a pointer to find_actors_by_name). The description adds the component-resolution context but no additional parameter syntax, so the 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 (List) and resource (every attribute of attribute sets on the actor's ability system component), and names the resolution path (IAbilitySystemInterface, else first UAbilitySystemComponent). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_attribute_value and set_attribute_base_value.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: 'Use get_attribute_value for one attribute, set_attribute_base_value to change one.' It also documents the error condition for a missing actor/component and the count-0 outcome for an empty component, so the agent knows exactly when this tool applies.

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