get_num_extended_polygroup_layers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the reply actor_name is the component name, not the actor label, and it documents the return shape even without an output schema.

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 purpose, then the read-only/naming caveat, then the alternative and return shape. Dense but each element carries weight; only the explicit 'Returns:' restatement is mildly redundant for a two-field result.

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 one-parameter read tool this is complete: purpose, scope (editor world, live mesh), alternative, and return fields are all present, and annotations carry the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to call 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 there is a single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds disambiguation value about actor_name (the reply's actor_name is the component name, not the actor label), clarifying the naming semantics beyond the schema's 'label or object name' text.

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 (count) and resource (extended polygroup layers beyond the default, on a DynamicMeshActor's live dynamic mesh in the editor world), and the exact return field name (num_polygroup_layers). This clearly distinguishes it from the mutation sibling set_num_extended_polygroup_layers named in the text.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: 'Change the count with set_num_extended_polygroup_layers', and scopes usage to the editor world's live dynamic mesh. It gives a clear context and the mutation counterpart, though it does not state an explicit when-not condition beyond that pairing.

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