get_mass_spawner_info

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds the non-obvious 'first match' resolution rule for duplicate actor labels plus the read-only scope. It discloses the response shape but leaves out behavior like what happens when no actor matches.

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 and reasonably structured, but the returned fields are enumerated twice - once in prose and again in an explicit 'Returns:' block - making part of the text redundant.

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 return contract and does so adequately (actor_label, actor_name, count, entity_type_count, entity_types). The main residual gap is the absence of a no-match/empty-result behavior note, but overall it is sufficient for a single-parameter 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that lookup is by actor label and that only the first match is returned, which resolves ambiguity the schema alone does not.

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 an AMassSpawner actor of the editor world') plus how it is located (by actor label, first match). It distinguishes itself from count_mass_entities, but does not differentiate from the equally relevant siblings get_mass_spawner_count and get_mass_spawner_entity_types, which appear to expose overlapping data.

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?

It routes the agent to count_mass_entities for counting spawned entities, which is useful, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling get_mass_spawner_count or get_mass_spawner_entity_types. Usage is only partially implied.

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