get_level_instance_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the implementation path (TActorIterator over live actors, emphasized as a 'REAL read' versus cached data) and pre-empts a false negative by stating an empty list is the honest correct 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then behavioral nuance, then the return shape. Only minor jargon ('REAL read', 'serialises') adds noise, and the Returns block is warranted because no output schema exists.

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 formal output schema, the description supplies the needed return shape (world, level_instances fields, count) and explains the empty-result semantics. Field-level meanings like world_asset_valid vs is_loaded are left to self-explanation, which is a small residual gap for a zero-param read 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misleading parameter language is present.

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: 'Lists every ALevelInstance actor in the editor world,' which is concrete enough to distinguish it from broad siblings like get_actors_in_level or list_world_partition_actors. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it reads level instances in the editor world. There is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over get_actors_in_level, list_world_partition_actors, or get_data_layer_instances, though the note about a valid empty result does steer interpretation.

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