get_net_role

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 genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it reads the editor-world instance rather than a PIE copy, meaning results reflect authoring-time roles only. That is a real caveat an agent could not infer from annotations.

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 tight sentences that lead with the action and resource, followed by the key caveat and a compact return-shape line. No wasted text; only minor redundancy between the caveat and the return keys.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by listing the returned fields (actor_name, local_role, local_role_name, remote_role, remote_role_name). Combined with the single documented parameter and the editor-vs-PIE caveat, it covers what an agent needs to call and interpret it.

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 parameter description already explains label semantics, matching and first-match behavior. The description adds only 'found by label', which is redundant with the schema, 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 (Read) plus the exact resource (LocalRole and RemoteRole, number and ENetRole name) on an actor located by label. It also distinguishes itself from replication siblings by noting it targets the editor-world instance, not a PIE copy.

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 gives clear context for when the result is meaningful (authoring-time roles of the placed instance, not a PIE server/client copy), which implicitly tells the agent when not to rely on it. It does not name a specific sibling alternative such as get_actor_replication_info, so it stops short of a full routing statement.

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