get_landscape_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: this is the ONLY trustworthy check of terrain position because the editor's New Landscape dialog treats Location as a centre, and the tool deliberately excludes LandscapeStreamingProxy actors. It stops short of deeper caveats like cost or staleness, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Purpose and the 'first call' role are front-loaded before the caveats, and the inline Returns block is justified because there is no output schema. The prose is dense and the field enumeration is long, costing some tightness, but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full return contract and does so explicitly (actor_name, actor_path, location, scale, vertex extents, component layout), plus the two operational gotchas (dialog-centre location, streaming-proxy exclusion). Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to identify landscapes, and the schema coverage is 100%, leaving nothing for the prose to compensate for.

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 (find/read) and resource (ALandscape actors and their geometry), and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from the broader landscape toolset by noting it lists ALandscape actors only, not LandscapeStreamingProxy actors, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_landscape_height_at.

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 positions itself as 'the first call of any landscape task' and explains that it provides the actor name other landscape tools need plus the numbers for world-XY-to-vertex conversion. It gives a clear condition for use (before other landscape tools) and a caveat on trusting its location output, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative to route to instead.

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