get_net_priority

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it reads the placed instance rather than a PIE copy, reports engine defaults (1.0 actors, 3.0 pawns), and points to the writer tool. This is rich context for a simple getter.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then compactly adds scope, defaults, and the writer tool. Every sentence carries useful information, and the return shape is stated without bloat.

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 single-parameter getter with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is complete: it defines the value semantics, scope, defaults, return shape, and writer alternative. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already explains label matching and first-match behavior in detail. The description reinforces that the actor is found by label but does not add syntax or resolution details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description gives a specific verb (read), a precise resource (NetPriority), and a clear scope (editor-world actor matched by label). It explains the concept (relative replication priority when bandwidth is short) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the mutation sibling set_net_priority, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 description provides clear usage context: it is read-only, operates on the placed editor-world instance rather than a PIE copy, and names set_net_priority as the writer. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other network getters like get_net_role or get_actor_replication_info, but the alternative for mutation is clear.

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