get_pcg_generated_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the result is empty until asynchronous generation finishes, and it discloses the exact return shape including an optional note.

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 in one sentence, then gives the async caveat and return shape. It is tightly structured with no filler, and every sentence adds useful information for calling or interpreting the tool.

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 annotations covering safety and the one-parameter schema fully documented, the description supplies what would otherwise be missing: the asynchronous empty-before-completion behavior and a return object shape in the absence of an output schema. An agent has enough context to call and interpret this read-only query 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter actor_name is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the actor holds a UPCGComponent but adds no new syntax, format, or selection semantics beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reports the generated output of an actor's UPCGComponent, including per-item pin, tags, and data class. This is clear and not a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_pcg_component_info or get_pcg_graph_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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 an important usage condition: output is empty until a generation completes because generation is asynchronous. This implies the tool should be used after generate_pcg_component, but it does not name that alternative or state when not to use this tool. Usage is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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