get_mass_spawner_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape '{ actor_label, actor_name, count }', which is valuable because no output schema exists, though it does not discuss error behavior or actor-resolution semantics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return fields. Every line earns its place, especially the return shape given the absence of an output schema.

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 simple read tool with one required parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return fields and routes to the inverse sibling. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 parameter actor_label is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 and resource: 'Read the current spawn count of an AMassSpawner'. It explicitly identifies the inverse sibling 'set_mass_spawner_count', so an agent can distinguish the read operation from the corresponding write operation without opening schemas.

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?

The phrase 'inverse of set_mass_spawner_count' gives clear usage context: use this to read the count, use the sibling to set it. It stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance or mentioning other alternatives like get_mass_spawner_info, so it is clear but not fully directive.

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