get_behavior_tree_status

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 value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields and noting the active task name is only present 'if any', which sets expectations about a partial result.

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 compact lines with the resource and scope front-loaded and the return shape in a second sentence that earns its place since no output schema exists. No redundant filler.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact return keys and flagging the conditional field. Nothing critical is missing 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, whose description already explains the actor/AIController target. The description adds no additional constraint or format detail beyond the schema, 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: reads runtime behavior-tree status and the active task name on an AI pawn. The word 'runtime' separates it from sibling get_behavior_tree_info (asset-level inspection), but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Reader:' and 'runtime' imply this is a live-state query rather than an asset query, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of an alternative (e.g., get_behavior_tree_info) to route between them.

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