get_pcg_component_info

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: generated:true is satisfied by a cached result, so the flag can read 'done' while spawned meshes are stale after a graph edit. That caching caveat is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the caveat and the alternative workflow, then a compact returns list. The dense caveat sentence is long but every clause earns its place by preventing a specific misreading of the generated flag.

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 compensates by listing the return object's fields and explaining the semantics of the tricky one. For a read-only single-param getter with annotations carrying the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

There is only one parameter (actor_name) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description's 'Returns:' block documents outputs rather than adding parameter syntax or format detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read an actor's PCG component') and enumerates exactly what is read (graph, seed, generating/generated state, activated, partitioned, generation trigger). It also names the sibling tools it is not (get_pcg_generated_data, get_components_by_class), so the agent can disambiguate without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('find which graph is driving an actor', 'confirm a seed for deterministic scatter') and an explicit when-not-to-use with the reason ('NOT as proof the world matches the graph'). It then routes the agent to the correct alternative workflow (get_pcg_generated_data / get_components_by_class after cleanup_pcg_component + generate_pcg_component).

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