get_camera_transform

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so that burden is lifted. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: matching is case-insensitive, returns the first match, and rotation is in degrees with a fixed axis order. It doesn't note whether the actor must be in the current loaded world or error behavior on no match.

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 essential verb/resource/scope, then the return shape. Slight redundancy: the first paragraph already summarizes the return values that the second 'Returns:' block restates, so one of them is expendable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly carries the return contract, providing both the property names and the semantic meaning of the arrays (location XYZ, rotation Pitch/Yaw/Roll in degrees). Combined with the case-insensitive first-match lookup rule, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents camera_name and its name-or-label matching. The description still adds value by clarifying case-insensitivity and first-match resolution, which the schema does not state.

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 and resource: 'Read the world location and rotation of a camera actor', and names the exact actor types (ACameraActor or CineCameraActor). It explicitly distinguishes itself from set_camera_transform ('the writer') and from generic actor tools, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Names the writer alternative (set_camera_transform) which is the primary read/write bifurcation an agent needs, and specifies the lookup mechanism. It doesn't address other read siblings like get_cameras or get_camera_asset_info, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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